Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Restrictive Agreements and Combines

Mr. Graham White: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to inform themselves of the extent and effect of restrictive agreements and of the activities of combines and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantages to sectional producing interests but work to the detriment of the country as a whole.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government propose to take to implement the assurance given in paragraph 54 of the White Paper on Employment Policy that they will seek power to inform themselves of the extent and effect of restrictive agreements and of the activities of combines and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantage to sectional-producing interests but work to the detriment of the country as a whole.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement I made on this subject on 6th December during the Debate on the Address.

Mr. Graham White: Has there been any change in Government policy in the matter?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, there has been no change.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will inquiries be made into the activities of co-operative societies?

Retail Businesses (Ex-Servicemen)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make some announcement as to the steps to be taken to protect ex-Servicemen who contemplate acquiring small shops as a means of livelihood, from unscrupulous sellers who have seldom carried on legitimate business for any length of time; and whether he will give an assurance that official advice is always available to ex-Servicemen and others who apply for it.

Mr. Dalton: I have asked local licensing committees not to grant licences on a change of ownership, unless they are satisfied that there is a genuine goodwill attaching to the business. This will, I hope, go far to protect ex-Servicemen from being exploited in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend. I am anxious to do everything possible to assist ex-Servicemen, and, although the question of whether or not the purchase of a particular business is a sound commercial proposition is a matter for trade or professional, rather than official, advice, I am in touch on this question with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour who is specially concerned with the resettlement of ex-Servicemen in civilian life.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Press give full publicity to the matter, as it will undoubtedly prevent a number of these undesirable transactions?

Mr. Dalton: I will do my best to give the fullest publicity to all that we are doing to endeavour to prevent people who have been defending the country overseas being fleeced by those who have stayed at home.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the large number of serving men who have been writing to Members and seem inclined to set up in business for themselves after the war, would my right hon. Friend, in addition to what he has promised in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, advise serving men by whatever publicity is available to him that the Board of Trade will offer what guidance they can?

Mr. Dalton: I repeat that I will do my best, but the Board of Trade cannot fulfil the functions of solicitor and business adviser to people. It would be wrong for us to try to do so. We are not equipped


for that work, but we will do our best. With the further object of assisting serving men, I have invited the British Legion to put a representative on each of the local licensing committees that are dealing with these matters

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will special consideration be given to the wives of serving men who desire to re-establish their small businesses?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly, we will do our best.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, while we continue to tolerate capitalism, the ex-Serviceman will be robbed?

Export Guarantees

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he can make a statement on the proposed new trade credit facilities and insurance that are to be operated on the termination of hostilities.

Mr. Dalton: I presented a Bill dealing with these matters on Friday last. I hope to move the Second Reading very shortly.

Egypt

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has recently taken to further the work of the Anglo-Egyptian Joint Committee; and, in view of the importance of immediate planning for our post-war trade with Egpyt, what are his proposals for the future work of this committee.

Mr. Dalton: As the House knows, there have recently been substantial modifications in the control over imports into Egypt and other Middle Eastern territories by the Middle East Supply Centre. I have also recently removed Egypt from the list of countries to which all exports from the United Kingdom must be covered by an export licence. In view of the improved prospects of trade with Egypt, I have invited the Chairman of this Committee to discuss future arrangements with me.

Sheets and Blankets

Mr. Oliver: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great shortage of bed-linen and blankets in Heanor and that expectant mothers and householders accommodating industrial workers who have come into the

district are unable to buy these articles; and whether he will take steps to authorise either an increase in the allocation or adjust the distribution of these commodities to overcome this hardship.

Mr. Dalton: I am afraid that sheets and blankets will remain scare, until more labour and textiles can be spared for civilian needs. But I have arranged with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to provide priority dockets for sheets to expectant mothers who need them for confinement at home. The Ministry of Health has also given local billeting officers discretion to issue bedding, within the limits of their stores, to householders who could not otherwise accommodate war workers.

Mr. Oliver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that industrial areas which have been swollen enormously by the reception of evacuees and the increase of war workers are having the greatest difficulty in acquiring these articles? Would it be possible to have some knowledge where those increases have taken place and to increase the quota?

Mr. Dalton: I quite appreciate the problem and shall be very glad to look into it along the lines my hon. Friend suggests. I will check up on the most recent information that we have as to how far we have been able to adjust the limited supplies to the changes in population in different districts. We are constantly watching this.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the shortage of blankets and bedding in places where a great deal has been destroyed by enemy action?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are not supplies to meet the dockets that have been issued?

Mr. Dalton: That is not the case. Traders may complain, but the statement is not true. The docket scheme is using up only one-third of the total production of sheets. For every one on the docket there are two in the free market.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Are there not still substantial supplies of blankets held by the Department for the W.V.S. and similar societies? Could they not be released?

Mr. Dalton: As far as possible we are releasing all such stocks. I do not think they are very large.

Steel Manufacture (Coal Consumption)

Mr. Higgs: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of coal utilised in making one ton of steel in this country and in America.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): I have been asked to reply. The amount of coal required, on the average, to produce a ton of heavy steel is about 2 tons in Great Britain and 1½ tons in the United States, the difference being mainly due to the higher grade ore available in the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME

Sir Geoffrey Mander: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will give an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government when introducing legislation on the subject of social insurance to interfere in any way with schemes already existing and legally binding on both parties in factories and industry at the present time.

The Minister of National Insurance (Sir William Jowitt): The White Paper, Part I, on Social Insurance does not propose any compulsory alteration of schemes such as those referred to by my hon. Friend. As indicated in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the White Paper, the parties to private pensions schemes may wish to review their terms and it is contemplated that the legislation should include provisions designed to facilitate the making of any modifications which may be voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it intended to introduce any Bills on social insurance this Session?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, Sir.

Sir William Beveridge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, as the Government proposals for a death grant and for abolition of the approved society system will affect the work and livelihood of many thousands of employees of industrial life offices, he is in a position to make any statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to industrial assurance;
(2) whether, having regard to the recommendation made in November, 1942, in the Report on Social Insurance and Allied Services, for conversion of the business of industrial assurance into a public service under an Industrial Assurance Board, he is now in a position to add to this recommendation made by him in February, 1943, that the Government had too much else on hand.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The Government have judged it preferable to press forward with the working out of their proposals for a national insurance scheme, rather than divert their attention to proposals which were described by my hon. Friend himself as unessential to his plan, and which give rise to difficult and complicated issues.

Sir W. Beveridge: Is it not possible, for the Government to attend to more than one thing at the same time in this field of social insurance?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend surprises me very much. He seems to be belittling the scope and magnitude of the plan with which his name is associated. I can assure him that practical experience in the working out of the various major legislative measures which will be required to give effect to the whole National Insurance plan has shown that the task is even more complex than had been expected, and that the decision of the Government to which my hon. Friend refers was very wise.

Mr. Goldie: Cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer do anything to relieve the very natural anxiety of employees of approved societies, who are doing such very good work?

Sir J. Anderson: I did, in the last Debate on the subject, give an assurance in regard to the employees of approved societies who might be displaced as the result of the large changes being made.

Mr. Molson: In spite of my right hon. Friend's answer, may we take it that it is the Government's intention to carry out that review of the general question of industrial assurance and funeral expenses which is promised in paragraph 136 of the White Paper?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly. It is the Goverment's intention, so far as circumstances permit, to carry out everything that they have contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Compassionate Leave (Application)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the mother, sister and recently the wife of No. 5054628, Gunner J. Simm, A Division, C Company, No. 2 South African Convalescent Depot, C.M.F., a native of Westhoughton, Lancashire, have all died since he has been serving in the Forces and that he has been refused compassionate leave since the death of his wife; and will he reconsider his decision in this case.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): As my answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Davies: Does not my right hon. Friend think that in the case of the death of the wife of a soldier he should automatically be allowed compassionate leave to come home to clear up problems which must necessarily arise?

Sir J. Grigg: Not automatically, particularly where there are no children. Perhaps the hon. Member will read my answer and see if it does not really dispose of his case.
Following is the answer:
On 18th October last an application was made for the return to this country of Gunner Simm on account of his wife's illness. His wife died on 19th October. A further application was made on 6th November to enable him to dispose of two insurance policies due upon the death of his wife. The facts were reported to the Commander-in-Chief, who has the final decision in such cases. He has evidently decided that the case is not strong enough, in comparison with the many others which he receives, to warrant repatriation. He may have been influenced by the fact that free legal aid is available to soldiers overseas and insurance policies can be disposed of by the grant of a power of attorney. As far as I am aware, the deaths of Gunner Simm's mother and sister have not hitherto been mentioned. Moreover, they took place, so I understand, before the death of his wife. Gunner Simm has no children. In general a man is only repatriated if his presence in this country can alleviate hardship. While I have every sympathy with Gunner Simm in his

loss, I regret that on the information I have the grounds for his return to this country are not as strong as in many other distressing cases.

Air-Mail Letters

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider raising the permitted number of air-mail letter cards to four per man per week in place of two.

Sir J. Grigg: The limit, on the number of air letters which soldiers can send home was removed and they can now send as many as they like. The authority was in fact given with effect from 17th December, the date on which the letter on which by hon. Friend's Question is based was written.

Overseas Service

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that members of a unit repatriated after four and a-half years' service overseas have been informed that they are to be posted to the Western Front on the completion of a current course, that is, after seven weeks in all in the United Kingdom; and whether the period of three months for which troops have hitherto been kept in this country after long service abroad has now been further reduced.

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the last part of the Question is No, Sir. The men referred to were brought back to this country for military reasons and not because they qualified for repatriation under the Python scheme. Those of them who have qualified are being retained in this country for at least three months. Moreover, those who are retained for less than three months will remain eligible for Python under normal rules on completing the necessary qualifying period.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he now has any further statement to make about the Signals personnel who were retained in S.E.A.C. and India, despite the completion of the normal period of overseas service in the Army.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer to the full answer I gave my hon. Friend on 5th December. I have heard nothing since which would lead me to suppose that the assurance referred to in that answer will not be carried out.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War what would be the reduction in the length of service of British troops in India if the shipping space and reinforcements now being used to provide a leave scheme were used to reduce the length of service in India.

Captain Duncan: On a point of Order. Question 74 appears to be purely hypothetical. Is the Secretary of State for War responsible for hypotheses?

Mr. Speaker: It has passed the Table, and is, therefore, in Order.

Sir J. Grigg: The answer is "Nil."

Mr. H. Lawson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that to institute any leave scheme and to maintain the strength of the unit unimpaired, both men and shipping space must be provided, and that these men and shipping space could equally be provided for reducing the length of service?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member's assertion is based on a complete fallacy. In the case of repatriation, replacements have to be sent out. In the case of short leave, officers and men are retained on the strength of their units. They are not replaced; so no replacement problem arises at all. That is the reason for my answer, "Nil."

Pipe Tobacco

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will cause some inquiry to be made into the quantity and quality of the tobacco provided by N.A.A.F.I. for purchase by the troops; and why it is seldom possible for the troops to draw pipe tobacco in lieu of the allotted ration of cigarettes.

Sir J. Grigg: In making up the stocks of tobacco and cigarettes for the Army overseas it is assumed that there are nine cigarette smokers to every one pipe smoker. This proportion is based on experience, and I am not aware that it has proved wrong in practice. I would also refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Loughborough (Major Kimball) on 16th January, and ask him to forward to me any specific complaints he has received so that they can be investigated.

Sir A. Knox: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many complaints from pipe smokers that they cannot get sufficient tobacco, especially from troops serving abroad; and is it not better to encourage, for health reasons, the smoking of pipes?

Sir J. Grigg: I have asked my hon. and gallant Friend to send me specific complaints and not merely a general complaint.

Mr. Thorne: ; Can my right hon. Friend state the reason why the troops cannot get Players cigarettes?

Sir J. Grigg: That is another question.

Wireless Sets (Greece)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of newspapers, the need for wireless sets capable of picking up home broadcasts and the delay in the receipt of mails for some of the British Forces in Greece; and what is being done to remedy this.

Sir J. Grigg: British Forces in Greece receive 6,000 copies of the Army newspaper "Union Jack" daily by air from Italy. Arrangements will shortly be completed for the production of "Union Jack" in Athens. An allocation of wireless sets has been made to our Forces in Greece by the Army headquarters in Italy on the same scale as for troops in Italy. These sets have proved satisfactory, and reception in Greece is in fact better than was the case with the same or similar sets in Italy. As regards mails I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) on 17th January.

Mr. Douglas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the complaint is not about the quality of the sets but about their scarcity?

Sir J. Grigg: I have just pointed out that the sets are issued on the same scale as in Italy.

Ardennes Operations (Rations and Equipment)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many of our men were without food for 24 hours in the Ardennes; and why they had not been supplied with emergency rations;
(2) how many of our men were without greatcoats and blankets in the Ardennes forest prior to 6th January; what is the explanation; and who was responsible.

Sir J. Grigg: A man normally wears his greatcoat. Blankets and a reserve of rations are carried in their transport by all British units going into battle. I understand from 21 Army Group that one unit was separated from its transport for about 24 hours and this has perhaps given rise to my hon. Friend's Questions. Such an incident is unfortunate but, I fear, unavoidable from time to time in the course of a battle. I am satisfied that no individual or Headquarters is to blame.

Personnel (Political Activities)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if the organisation or signature of the circular letters recently distributed to various newspapers, purporting to originate from a number of British soldiers in Greece and condemning the policies of E.A.M, and E.L.A.S. and the speeches of hon. Members of this House, is to be treated as a breach of the A.C.I. which forbids the signature of public petitions, circulars and appeals dealing with political matters; and if he will now reconsider his decision not to withdraw this instruction.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) on 16th January. The question whether in a particular instance there has been a contravention of King's Regulations is one for determination by the responsible military authority.

Mr. Driberg: If these instances are not contraventions of the instruction, are we to take it that the instruction is only to be applied one-sidedly?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member persists in referring to the instruction as if it were a hard and fast binding regulation. As I have tried to point out on more than one occasion, the instruction is a warning.

Mr. Driberg: It is worded in a very hard-and-fast way.

Sir H. Williams: Am I to assume that my constituents are not debarred by the Army Council Instruction from writing to

me or to their relatives on these matters, because many are writing to describe E.L.A.S. in very unfavourable terms?

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many are also writing of it in very favourable terms?

Overseas Personnel (Leave)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are taken to make it known to the Servicemen overseas about leave conditions; and whether the troops have facilities open to them to make approach to the commanding officer if they feel the conditions are not being carried out.

Sir J. Grigg: The publication in overseas theatres of leave conditions applicable to the theatre is a matter for the Commander-in-Chief concerned. This is usually done by means of General Routine Orders or such other instructions as the Commander-in-Chief sees fit to issue. Use is also made of the Forces newspapers. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Leave (Travelling Facilities)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement in the provision of facilities for troops returning on leave to be conveyed to their homes if their trains arrive at the station after the last omnibus has left.

Mr. R. T. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men on leave from the East arrived at a northern town in the early morning and had to wait hours before transport was available to take them home; and is he prepared to make arrangements to prevent this unfortunate situation occurring again.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on Tuesday last.

War Office (Business Advisory Committee)

Commander Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for War how the Business Advisory Committee of the War Office has functioned since its establishment; how often it meets; how many formal reports it has presented and on what


subjects; and the names of the present members and their present or former business connections.

Sir J. Grigg: As my answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The Standing Committee on Army Administration (which is the Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers) held fairly frequent meetings in the first 18 months of its existence, set up a number of sub-committees on particular subjects, and started many investigations into Army administration. As a result of its work various new organisations were created within the War Office which gradually assumed most of the burden originally falling on the Standing Committee itself. In consequence of these developments the terms of reference of the Committee were altered, at its own request, so that it is now available to be used when required to explore questions of major policy concerning the future organisation of the Army and the War Office and their relation to the general Government machine. The Committee has presented three formal reports, one on the higher organisation of the War Office, one on the organisation of the General Staff and the Quarter-Master-General's Department and the third a review of its first year's work.

Officer Promotions (Overseas Service)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are taken when vacancies arise in the various overseas theatres of war to ensure that promotion from lieutenant to captain or captain to major is made from those officers who are already there serving rather than to bring out, as now is the case, officers from home forces of higher rank to fill such vacancies which precludes promotion by merit and experience in the field.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to a reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 29th February.

Mr. Liddall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any improvement in the position?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "improvement." I have very little doubt that the largest measure of justice attainable in human affairs is striven for.

Mr. Liddall: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is cause for great dissatisfaction, when men are taking part in the battle month after month and year after year, and they find men sent out who have never tasted battle getting promotion?

Sir J. Grigg: The only complaint I have ever heard is one in precisely the opposite sense, that it is impossible for people who are sent abroad to achieve their fair share of promotion. I do not believe that that is any more true than the contrary, but that is the only complaint I have heard.

Married Women (A.T.S.)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider releasing married women from service in the A.T.S. where it is shown that the wife is required to look after an invalid husband and carry out necessary household duties owing to the impossibility of securing outside assistance.

Sir J. Grigg: Releases are at present being granted in this type of case when the circumstances justify this course. But in view of the shortage of man-power which, of course, includes woman-power, each individual application has to be very carefully and indeed critically scrutinised.

Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware of two cases which I sent to the War Office, of a husband who is paralysed and a husband who broke his leg in a mining accident? Surely in cases like that, where it is impossible to get assistance, the wives should be discharged rather than be sent on compassionate leave for a short period?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not remember those cases, but I will certainly look into them and in due course send an answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that there is not nearly enough human understanding in these matters?

Sir J. Grigg: On the contrary, there is a great deal of human understanding, but the number of applications in these cases is so large that, if any large proportion of them were acceded to, the effect on the man-power of the Army would be very serious indeed.

Mr. De la Bère: My right hon. Friend should appreciate the very strong feeling in the country about this matter.

A.T.S. (Overseas Service)

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of A.T.S. personnel, to whom facilities have been offered to serve abroad, have volunteered to do so.

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot give an answer to my hon. Friend's Question in precisely the form in which it is asked because information as to the number of auxiliaries who have volunteered but who for various reasons are ineligible for service overseas could only be obtained by calling for special returns. But it may perhaps answer the purpose of my hon. Friend's Question if I say that volunteers now available for posting overseas are sufficient to cover about a quarter of the present requirements. Moreover, as a result of the comb-out of Army establishments to which I referred in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff on 16th January, the number of A.T.S. needed for service abroad is bound to increase substantially

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the satisfactory response already made will my right hon. Friend and the Government reconsider the whole question of the conscription of the A.T.S., especially in view of the fact that no other country has conscripted women to the extent that we have?

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid that I do not regard a response of one-quarter of the requirements as entirely satisfactory.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the conscription of women most objectionable?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can throw any light on the attitude of the A.T.S. itself on the question of compulsory drafting overseas and are there grounds for stating that this proposal is assented to or resented by the majority of those likely to be themselves concerned.

Sir J. Grigg: As I said in the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) on 16th January, my information suggests that the reaction of most members of the A.T.S. has been favourable to the policy of compulsory posting overseas.

Miss Rathbone: Is not the objection to this proposal really mostly from parents who have disagreed with their

daughters, and that the daughters are willing to serve but the parents are not willing for them to do so?

Sir J. Grigg: I think there is a good deal in what the hon. Lady says.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the men in the Services do not want it? That is the real point.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about the discontent among certain members of the A.T.S. who are anxious to go abroad, but who have been prevented on the ground that their services in this country are indispensable?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me specified cases. There are a certain number of people who are not allowed to go abroad because they are either too young or are married with young children. I am doubtful if there are any appreciable number who are not allowed to go abroad on the ground that their services in this country are regarded as indispensable.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Is not the point not who is or is not favourable, but what is in the national interest?

Sir J. Grigg: I quite agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War what will be the maximum period of overseas service of A.T.S. compulsorily posted to overseas establishments.

Sir J. Grigg: The present tour of overseas service for members of the A.T.S. who volunteer is in general three years. I propose to review the period of service in consequence of the decision to send A.T.S. abroad compulsorily.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure he is going to send them compulsorily? Is it not better to bow to wisdom and understanding and the wishes of the people in these matters?

Education Officer (Appointment)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among personnel of the A.E.C. caused by the appointment to an important educational post of an officer with no experience of teaching and who was not a member of the A.E.C.; and if


he will give an assurance that such appointments will be filled only by properly qualified persons.

Sir J. Grigg: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the officer about whom he asked me a Question on 19th December. I understand that this officer will be employed as a staff officer responsible for the organisation of pre-vocational training. I have no reason to suppose he is not fully qualified to perform the duties of his appointment. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this officer's only qualifications for this important educational job, which carries with it the rank of lieutenant-colonel, are two years in a bank and sixteen years as a stockbroker?

Sir J. Grigg: There is surely a considerable difference between organising Army classes and actually teaching at them.

West African Troops (Punishment)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now completed his inquiry into the allegations of whipping and striking of West African soldiers; what action has been taken regarding the specific evidence brought to his notice; and whether further consideration is now being given to the whole question of the punishment and treatment of West African soldiers.

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member forwarded to me a letter from one West African. The allegations he made are now being examined in West Africa. I have had a telegraphic report, which indicates that the allegations are without foundation, but I am expecting a full report by post. The answer to the last part of the Question is, No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: When is this report likely to come through? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the only sign of these unfortunate incidents taking place in West Africa?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, I have had another case, which has been completely disproved.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my supplementary question?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say when the report will be available, but there will be no avoidable delay.

Mistaken Notification

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the father of Rifleman John William Paton, 14443813, The Cameronians, S.R., who is seriously wounded and in a British military hospital, having lost half his left leg and being badly wounded in the other, has been informed that his son is absent without leave and has been ordered to hand in his allowance order book immediately; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent parents being further distressed in this manner.

Sir J. Grigg: I much regret the distress caused to the parents of this man as a result of the notification, later proved to be incorrect, which was sent to the regimental paymaster, who deals with this man's accounts. The allowance book was returned to the father on 18th January, as soon as it was clear that a mistake had been made. The matter is being further investigated, in order to find out how the mistake arose.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this really does not happen again? I understand that in quite a large number of cases parents have been distressed in this way, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything to ensure that the Record Office will be absolutely certain before sending out such notices?

Sir J. Grigg: The Record Office are not to blame in these cases. It is the notification from the theatre of war which is normally to blame, and I think a certain number of mistakes of that kind are understandable. I think that there have been three or four of them, and I regret them all; but I would be sorry if the public got the impression that there was avoidable carelessness. Anyhow, as soon as I have the facts, I shall be able to see if there are any defects in the machinery. The last case, I went into the matter of machinery, and I thought I had made some improvement.

Requisitioned Laud

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the purport of a reply sent by his Department recently to a rural district council, of which he has been informed, in connection with the de-requisitioning after the war of land now used as a battle-training area.

Sir J. Grigg: My Noble Friend is, I think, referring to a letter written by the Regional Commissioner, after consulting the military authorities, to the Wareham and Purbeck rural district council. The land in question will certainly be needed as long as the war lasts. The Army's post-war needs are not yet known, and I regret that until they are it will not be possible to say whether this particular area will have to be retained after the war.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, from the point of view of post-war holiday-makers, this area represents some of the finest natural scenery in the entire country? Further, is he aware that any attempt on the part of the War Office to maintain control of this area after the war will be strenuously resisted by the county council, and in this House?

Sir J. Grigg: I have no doubt that both of those factors will be taken into account by whoever is responsible for post-war decisions.

Overseas Service

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it has now been decided to curtail the period of service of British troops abroad; and whether he will define the various theatres of war to which this applies.

Sir J. Grigg: The figures I gave my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr Raikes) on 19th December will show my hon. Friend why it is unfortunately impossible at this stage of the war to reduce appreciably the periods of overseas service quoted in the reply I gave to a number of hon. Members on 26th September.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not the fact that recent statements in a section of the Press that the period of service for leave was going to be curtailed have given false hopes to many of our men abroad, and is it not now possible to reduce the period of service?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I do not think there is a single fact or factor in this problem of which I am not aware. As regards the first supplementary, it is quite true that there was in one newspaper a very misleading statement, which I am afraid was attributable to a very

silly answer given by a member of my staff. I hope that the present reply will remove any misapprehension there may be.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.A. COURT MARTIAL (SENTENCE)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the sentence of death promulgated by an Allied military court on Karl Punzler, of Monschau, 16 years of age, has been carried out; and, if not, what is the alternative sentence imposed upon him.

Sir J. Grigg: This man was tried by an American court but I understand that the death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a person of 16 a man?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not a matter for me, but for the Supreme Commander. I am merely giving the hon. Member information.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (WOMEN'S FORCES)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War which of the United Nations besides Great Britain send members of their Women's Forces on compulsory service abroad.

Sir J. Grigg: Several of the United Nations have power to send members of their Women's Forces on compulsory service abroad. So far as my information goes, and that information does not cover the U.S.S.R., only the U.S.A. exercise it at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEK EXTERNAL DEBT (INTEREST)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will take steps which will result in a reduction of the present high rate of interest, 8 per cent., now chargeable upon the Greek External National Debt, as this might be a contributing factor to the present disunity in Greece.

Sir J. Anderson: I think my hon. Friend's Question must be based on a misconception, since it is not the case that a rate of interest of 8 per cent. is chargeable upon the Greek External Debt. I


should perhaps remind the hon. Member that in January, 1940, as a result of negotiations between the Greek Government on the one hand and the Council of Foreign Bondholders and the League Loans Committee on the other hand, the Greek Government undertook to pay over a proportion of the interest on its external debt for the period from 1st April, 1940, until the end of the war, a moratorium being granted in respect of the remaining amounts due. As a result of the occupation of Greece by the enemy, the Greek Government was forced to suspend the service of its external debt in April, 1941, but in March, 1942, the Greek Government informed the Council of Foreign Bondholders and the League Loans Committee that it would carefully re-examine the question with them as soon as possible after the liberation of Greece and the establishment of a measure of recovery in her economic life, in order to reach a just and equitable settlement. It has not yet been possible for such re-examination to take place.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: While the rate may not be exactly 8 per cent., it is a very excessive rate. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these heavy rates of interest are likely to cause discontent in the minds of the Greek people?

Mr. Edgar Granville: Can the Chancellor say whether the Treasury expert who is at the present time in Greece dealing with questions of currency and so on, has discussed with members of the present Greek Government the question of converting Greek loans to a lower rate of interest?

Sir J. Anderson: It is fruitless to go on discussing this on a basis of complete misapprehension. There are numerous outstanding loans ranging from 2½ per cent. to 7 per cent., which is the highest. The overall figure is far below that of 8 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PERSONNEL (RE-ALLOCATION)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Prime Minister what is the present position relating to the proposed re-allocation of personnel between the three Services; whether such re-allocation has begun; and whether he can state its scope in general terms.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): In accordance with the statement issued on 22nd December, men are being transferred to the Army from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. They will be used to increase the striking power of the Army, and in so far as it is necessary they are being retrained for this purpose. It would not be in the public interest to give particulars of the extent of the transfers.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

United Kingdom and United States (Double Taxation)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what stage the conversations between the British and United States Governments, begun a year ago, on the subject of double taxation, have arrived.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Government of the U.S.A. to reach an agreement for the relief of those now subject to double taxation.

Sir J. Anderson: The discussions that have been taking place between official representatives of the two Governments have recently been completed and definite proposals for a double taxation treaty are now under consideration.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give great satisfaction to this House and to the people concerned?

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the resolution sent to him by the Old Age Pensioners' Association asking him to make provision in the Budget Statement in April next for a substantial increase in the basic rate of old age pension; and if he is in a position now to make a reply.

Sir J. Anderson: An increase in the basic rate of old age pension would require legislation. I am not prepared to introduce legislation dealing with old age pensions, pending the introduction of the Government's scheme of National Insurance.

Mr. Tinker: Would the Chancellor take this Question as an indication of the feeling among old age pensioners that they are not getting a square deal, and that the Government stand condemned on this question and will have to do something more substantial than they are doing?

Mr. Shinwell: If nothing is to be done in the Budget on this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government intend to introduce their legislation on social insurance dealing with this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: I certainly cannot say what is to be done in the Budget, though I should not have thought that this matter was proper for Budget consideration. As regards national insurance legislation, I know that every effort is being made to introduce the major Bill at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Foster: Is not the Chancellor aware that that legislation will not affect in any way the present generation of old age pensioners, though it is they who complain?

Sir J. Anderson: What I mean is that the whole question will then come under review.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Could not consideration be given to the change in the value of money?

Sir J. Anderson: That raises a very wide question.

Motor Vehicles (Taxation)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in fixing the new motor-car tax, he has considered differentiating between motor-cars of varying ages, in view of the unfairness of the same tax on new vehicles and on those of up to 10 years of age.

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's assumption that a rate of tax which does not vary with the age of the vehicle is unfair.

British Aid to Allies

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts have so far been lent by this country to any of our Allies or to the resistance movements in any country, respectively, since the start of the war.

Sir J. Anderson: The total advanced by His Majesty's Government to our Allies since the war started, and outstanding as at 31st December, 1944, is £307,694,000. Under the terms of the Mutual Aid Agreements which were concluded with some of our Allies during 1944, the cash charge in respect of military equipment and stores which had already been supplied on credit terms will be cancelled as soon as the necessary detailed figures have been obtained and agreed with the Allied Governments concerned. Thus the figure which I have given will eventually be considerably reduced.
The hon. Member will recollect that an estimate of Mutual Aid to our Allies (as opposed to cash advances) was given on page 7 of the Second Report on Mutual Aid (Cmd. Paper 6570). As stated in paragraph 18 of that White Paper, mutual aid was sent to resistance movements in many parts of Europe. No cash advances were made to resistance movements otherwise than through the Allied Government concerned.

Mr. Shinwell: Have any of the foreign monarchs in this country, whether King Peter or King George, received any financial assistance from His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. Anderson: Any question on that subject should be put on the Paper.

Gifts from Troops Abroad (Customs Duty)

Mr. Touche: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many relatives of Servicemen overseas on receiving parcels labelled Duty Free Concession for Gifts sent to the United Kingdom are being asked to pay Customs duties; and whether he will take steps to clarify the position, which is at present causing misunderstanding and disappointment both to the donors and the recipients of these gifts.

Sir J. Anderson: As I explained on 16th January to the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), members of the Forces abroad are now allowed to send home free of import duty and Purchase Tax a limited number of gift parcels of a total value not exceeding £12 in a year. One of the conditions essential to the concession is that each parcel shall be accompanied by a special label—Army


Form W.5192—which can be obtained by a Serviceman from his unit. Details of the concession have been circulated to all overseas Commands. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any cases in which duty has been charged on parcels bearing the label and within the terms of the concession, I shall be happy to have inquiries made.

Mr. Touche: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are such cases, and that I shall be glad to send him particulars?

Sir J. Anderson: I shall be glad to see them.

Small Incomes (Taxation)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of anomalies in the incidence of Income Tax on taxable incomes between £110 and £133 per annum; if he has considered the proposals for removing these anomalies submitted to him by Messrs. Ford, Ayrton and Company, Limited, of Law Bentham; and if it is his intention to introduce provisions of this nature.

Sir J. Anderson: The proposals to which the hon. Member refers are directed to an alteration of the graduation of the tax by way of higher personal allowances for small incomes. This would involve an alteration of the Income Tax law in the Finance Act and is therefore a matter into which I cannot enter in advance of the Budget. It is possible that under the existing law the incidence of the tax might be modified by spreading the deduction and as indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Green) on 16th January this matter is under consideration.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that the present arrangements mean that tax is paid at the rate of 15s. in the £ in this range of income, and it is very important that some modification should be made at the earliest possible moment?

Sir J. Anderson: I fully realise that disadvantage.

Coinage (Decimal System)

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the names of the countries in which the national monetary unit is divided on the decimal system; and whether he is

prepared to set up a small committee of experts to report on the most convenient procedure to be followed in order to decimalise the British coinage.

Sir J. Anderson: To ensure complete accuracy a full answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question would entail a good deal of research, but it will perhaps serve his purpose if I say that a list of the countries whose monetary system is divided on the decimal basis would be a long one. In reply to the second part of the Question, I cannot agree to the committee he proposes because, as my previous Answers on this subject have shown, I am not prepared to consider the decimalisation of our coinage.

Mr. Duckworth: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the decimalisation of our coinage is strongly urged by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, not only in the United Kingdom but through the Empire?

Sir Alfred Beit: Is it not a fact that the £ in both Egypt and Palestine is on a decimal basis?

Sir J. Anderson: I can only say that to change to a decimal basis would involve such an upheaval as could not be contemplated in present circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIED WOMEN)

Captain Prescott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is a general ban on the employment in Government Departments of married women doctors; and whether, in view of their special qualifications, especially for employment in the Ministry of Health, he will consider action to secure their employment in suitable cases.

Sir J. Anderson: The normal rule is that married women are ineligible for appointment to established posts in the Civil Service, and that women holding such posts should be required to resign on marriage; but an exception may be made, upon application by the woman concerned, in any case where it is considered that the employment of a married woman is advisable in the light of her special qualifications, or special experience in relation to the duties required of her, or of the special requirements of the Department concerned. In view of the power to make


exceptions in such cases, no special action seems to be needed in relation to women doctors.

Captain Prescott: In view of the shortage of doctors at the present time, a shortage which is likely to continue in the future, and of the special adaptability of women doctors for certain branches of the Service, ought not the general ban to be lifted?

Sir J. Anderson: The case of doctors is certainly very special, and, as I have just explained, the general rule can be relaxed. I know of no case whatever in which permission has been refused to a woman doctor.

Captain Prescott: Why should the ban be retained? Is it not redundant, actually?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a matter of debate.

Sir H. Williams: Would it not be better to do away entirely with the ban on the employment of married women? Are they not more sensible than spinsters?

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Government policy one of equality on this question, as applied to married teachers? Why cannot it be the same in regard to married doctors? Why does it work in one way and not in the other?

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many women have been retained, on marriage, in the Civil Service since the outbreak of war.

Sir J. Anderson: Very large numbers of women have been retained on marriage in the Civil Service during the war, though in an unestablished capacity; I regret that no figures are available.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Does not my right hon. Friend think the time has come when, in the best interests of the Civil Service itself, this old fashioned marriage bar regulation should be done away with?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend must realise that this is a matter on which there is considerable difference of opinion, and difference of opinion in the Civil Service. I do not think it should be a matter for a snap decision at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-WAR INDUSTRY (FINANCE CORPORATIONS)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about negotiations for the formation of new organisations for the financing of industry.

Sir J. Anderson: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.
Later—

Sir J. Anderson: I am glad to be able to announce that I am informed by the Governor of the Bank of England that discussions, which have reached an advanced stage, have been taking place amongst the banking and financial communities of the country on the financial needs of industry in the post-war period.
As a result, it is proposed to set up two companies. One company, to be named Finance Corporation for Industry Limited, is intended to have a capital of £25,000,000 and borrowing powers of four times that amount. Thus the total resources of the company would be £125,000,000. The capital is to be subscribed roughly in about equal proportions by consortiums of the insurance companies and the investment trust companies and by the Bank of England. Arrangements are being made whereby loan capital is to be supplied to the company by the clearing banks and the Scottish banks. The purposes of this company will be the provision of temporary or longer period finance for industrial businesses of the country with a view to their quick rehabilitation and development in the national interest, thereby assisting in the maintenance and increase of employment. The company's primary purpose will be to provide finance and not itself to reorganise industry.
The second and smaller company, to be named the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation, Limited, will have a capital of £15,000,000 and borrowing powers of twice that amount. The capital will be subscribed by the clearing and Scottish banks together with a token subscription by the Bank of England and it is being arranged that the loan capital will be available from these banks in the same proportions as they subscribe for the shares of the company.
The total resources of the company will therefore be £45,000,000 and the object will be to supply medium and long-term


capital for small and medium sized businesses of the country in amounts, say, from £5,000 to £200,000; amounts of less than £5,000 can usually be procured in the ordinary way from bankers.
I am informed that it is proposed that both these companies will be managed as units in themselves, entirely independent from the banks, with their own boards of directors and permanent staffs of men experienced in finance, commerce and industry. The larger company will have the assistance of a special Industrial Advisory Panel. In order that the policy of the company may conform to the general economic policy of the Government, the appropriate Government Departments will be kept informed of the nature and extent of all major developments being considered by the company.
I am also informed that the companies intend to conduct their operations on the broadest possible basis consistent with reasonable commercial prudence and it is hoped they will thus become an important and stable feature in post-war financial machinery. These companies will not in any way supersede existing sources for the supply of capital but be in addition thereto.
These two companies are being created on the initiative of the banking, insurance and investment sections of the business communities of the country and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government they will constitute an important and helpful step in the post-war finance for industry. For these reasons I welcome these two projects as being directly in accord with and calculated to help in an important degree the Government policy of full employment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This is a very important statement and it is obviously impossible for the House to grasp it, in all its details, having just heard it to-day. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether an opportunity will be provided for the House to discuss these proposals. I appreciate that formally and nominally, that is not a decision of the Government but of the banks, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has shown that it is very closely inter-related with Government policy, and I would like to know whether an opportunity will be provided for the House to discuss this matter. A minor point that I would like

to know is whether, on the industrial panel associated with the larger body, there will be representatives of the labour side of industry as well as of capital.

Sir J. Anderson: Taking the last point first, I understand that it is the intention that the management and the labour sides of industry should be represented on the panel. On the first point that my right hon. Friend has raised, that is, of course, a matter to be considered in the usual way. I myself will be glad at any time to take part in a discussion.

Sir P. Harris: Can my right hon. Friend say at this stage who will appoint the boards of the two proposed companies, and will the Government be represented on either of the boards?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, this involves no direct Government responsibility in any form but the companies will be ordinary commercial undertakings registered under the Companies Acts.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to small businesses; may I ask him what is his definition of them?

Sir J. Anderson: I did indicate that the smaller of the two corporations is designed specially to provide accommodation for small businesses and would be concerned with the making of loans ranging from, say, £5,000 to £200,000.

Mr. A. Bevan: In view of the fact that the operations of this proposed undertaking will be very similar to those formerly discharged by the Bankers Industrial Development Corporation, and of the great dissatisfaction felt in industry and in the House of Commons about the behaviour of that corporation, is it intended to have some kind of instrument connecting this House with this corporation by which we can keep its activities under constant review? Furthermore, is it not obvious that the operations of this financing company are bound to affect the whole policy of priorities after the war and is it not, therefore, necessary that we should ourselves determine the policy which should govern the use of these large sums of finance?

Sir J. Anderson: There is a very substantial difference between the conception of these companies and between the larger of these two companies and the


Bankers Industrial Development Corporation. As regards the second point, of course, these concerns will take their place in the organisation of private enterprise in this country. They are promoted on the assumption, which I certainly make, that there will be a very large field for private enterprise after the war. The existence of these companies will not in any way alter or affect the relations of the Government to industry. As I have said, it is intended that the corporation should keep in touch with the Government so that the Government may be fully aware of what it does.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Surely, my right hon. Friend cannot consider that the operations of the Bank of England are purely private enterprise, considering the very close association now existing between the Bank of England and the Government.

Sir J. Anderson: This is not to be regarded as an operation of the Bank of England.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the corporation will keep the Department informed of what they are doing. Can he say whether the Department will have any direct representation or any veto?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, they will have no representation, because they have no financial responsibility.

Sir William Beveridge: As neither of these companies will help the really small man who wants less than £5,000, will the welcome that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to this proposal cause him also to hasten the reconsideration of the Treasury ban upon issues which prevents the formation of these small companies, to which I called attention recently, for the development of local industries? This is only helping the relatively big people, and we want the small people to be helped. Will the Treasury reconsider this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I do not think, with respect to my hon. Friend, that the existing arrangements do, in fact, prevent the establishment of quite small concerns, and I think that the practice has been to allow issues up to £10,000 in a year without control.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into account that the formation of these new companies will not provide any additional new capital but merely a new channel through which the savings will flow into industry and, therefore, will have the effect of diminishing all other loans?

Sir J. Anderson: They will provide additional facilities. The amount of capital available for investment is, in fact, limited.

Mr. G. Strauss: As the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government will take no responsibility in the management of these concerns, does it not mean that the criterion by which these industries should get priority in the allocation of this new capital will be financial and not in the national interest, which will be a very serious matter?

Sir J. Anderson: Not at all. The Government will be just as free after the formation of these companies as before to influence the direction in which new capital is provided by any means at their disposal.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the intention to set up subsidiary companies which will finance industry in specific categories?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no information on that point.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Would it not be better to study the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before asking further questions about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Conditions (Germany)

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the total fuel allowance to our prisoners of war in Oflag VIIB is 11 tons for this winter; that this is less than one-third of last winter's allowance; and what steps are being taken to obtain a substantial increase.

Sir J. Grigg: According to the latest report by the Protecting Power, the fuel supply of Oflag VIIB is 70 per cent. of last year's. This reduction was made the


subject of a strong complaint by the Protecting Power and as a result permission has been given to the prisoners to cut a quantity of wood from the local forest to supplement their fuel ration. Having regard to the severe fuel restrictions imposed on the civil population in Germany, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Protecting Power are doing all that can be done in the circumstances.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very grave hardship is being suffered in this camp, and will he do everything in his power to press for increased fuel supplies?

Sir J. Grigg: In the first place the figure given in the hon. and gallant Member's Question is less than half the real figure. In the second place, as I thought I had made clear in my answer, some result has followed the representations of the Protecting Power.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people in East London are also suffering great hardship through lack of fuel?

Clothing

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War why coupons granted to relatives of prisoners of war have to be exchanged for underclothing at specified private firms; whether his Department or the Red Cross supply underclothes to prisoners of war, and to what extent; whether he is satisfied that prisoners of war receive adequate and suitable clothing; and what charges are made.

Sir J. Grigg: The arrangements for the issue of clothing coupons to relatives of prisoners of war are made by the Board of Trade. So far as I am aware, such coupons can be used at any retail firm which provides the articles required. Sufficient clothing and underclothing is sent through the International Red Cross Committee at Geneva to prisoner-of-war camps in Germany by the British Red Cross War Organisation to ensure that all prisoners of war from the British Commonwealth are adequately supplied. The quantities so sent have regard to the items sent direct to individual prisoners of war in quarterly next-of-kin parcels. Increasing dislocation of transport in Germany makes it difficult to ensure that all camps receive supplies of clothing and

underclothing when they are required, but as a general rule the position is satisfactory. The clothing sent out by the Red Cross is issued free to other ranks. On repatriation, officers are expected to pay for such clothing.

Mr. Sorensen: Could not the Red Cross and the War Office between them see that all underclothing is supplied, rather than leaving the relatives to go to private firms?

Sir J. Grigg: Relatives do it because they want to. There is no obligation on them to send any clothing. Any deficit is made up by the Red Cross and the War Office between them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING COMMITTEE (RENTS, AIRDRIE)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) why tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Committee are charged 16s. a week rent for their houses at Gartleahill, Airdrie, whereas Airdrie council houses both east and west of Gartleahill are let at 7s. 9d. and 10s. 3d. per week, including rates;
(2) if he is aware of the dissatisfaction of the tenants of the Scottish Special Housing, Committee's houses at Gartleahill, Airdrie, on account of the dampness of the all-concrete houses, their bad state of repair, and the lack of boundary fences to their gardens; and if he will take steps to put these houses into better repair, with better amenities, and reduce the rent of 16s. per week, especially as these tenants are, for various reasons, some £30 per annum worse off than when they lived nearer their work, in houses now destroyed by enemy action.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The houses belonging to the Scottish Special Housing Association at Gartleahill, Airdrie were requisitioned in 1941 by the Ministry of Supply. The rents, which are not subsidised by the Exchequer, were then fixed by the Ministry of Supply, I understand on the advice of the Chief Valuer for Scotland, at £28, £33 and £38 for 3, 4, and 5-apartment houses respectively. These rents cannot be compared with the rents charged by the town council, which were fixed, with the aid of subsidy, at £13 5s. to £18 10s. for persons rehoused from unfit or overcrowded property. Complaints


recently received about the condition of the Gartleahill houses are being investigated, and any necessary repairs will be carried out without delay.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that practically the whole of this estate is occupied by my folk, who were shifted out from Clydebank, and who are now forced to travel 30 miles to and from their work, with all the extra expense for travelling? Will he reply to that part of my Question which deals with the fact that it is costing them £30 per annum more than before they were blitzed? They are being penalised because they were blitzed. I want to know what the Secretary of State is going to do to meet that item.

Mr. Johnston: With reference to the last part of the question, the economic conditions of these workers and the rents they are paying are obviously a matter for their employers, the Ministry of Supply; and I would advise my hon. Friend to place his question there.

Mr. Kirkwood: This is a very serious business. Those houses are neither wind nor water-tight. That being so, will the Secretary of State instruct me to inform the people that they need not pay rent until the houses are made wind and watertight?

Mr. Johnston: That is a legal question, of which I would like notice. But the answer I have given regarding repairs is clear and definite—they will be carried out without delay. On the legal question of liability for rent of houses which are not wind and water-tight, I would like notice.

Mr. Gallacher: Does not the Secretary of State, responsible as he is for Scotland and the Scottish people, consider it his duty to bring this matter before the Ministry of Supply, and to see that something is done in connection with these rents and the condition of these houses?

Mr. Johnston: I have already publicly suggested to my hon. Friend that questions relating to the economic conditions of these workers, the distances they travel, the rents they pay, and so on, are clearly matters for the Ministry of Supply, and it would be outwith my powers to interfere.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Ministry of Supply what he thinks about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC COAL SUPPLIES

Sir Robert Tasker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that great hardship is being experienced by poor people due to the shortage of coal; and if he is considering obtaining the release of men to act as loaders and carmen to enable suppliers to meet the demand of customers and confer with the Minister of Labour to that end.

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he proposes to take to relieve the serious situation regarding the distribution of coal in London; and whether he will consider using Italian prisoner-of-war labour on this work.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): There are adequate supplies of house coal in London at the present moment. Receipts of coal merchants over the last five weeks were practically the same as during the corresponding period last year and merchants' disposals to consumers during the same period were also about the same as last year, despite difficulties caused by the prolonged severe weather. Merchants' reserve stocks are still substantial though much less than at this time last year. The Government dumps, which were laid down to deal with an emergency, however, are available for merchants to draw their supplies and 72 of these dumps are now being used in London. Further, consumers authorised by the Local Fuel Overseer can obtain, on a "cash-and-carry" basis, small quantities from certain of these dumps.
The primary difficulty in London has been labour for retail coal distribution. The trade has had to do its job with only three-quarters of its pre-war manpower, and the events of the past summer have added materially to the strain on this depleted labour force. In particular, the flying bomb attacks caused many people to leave London, and, consequently, they did not stock their cellars as usual. Notwithstanding the general shortage of labour, special steps have been taken to make more men available from sources such as the Services, Civil Defence and Prisoners of War.
It is not possible to increase the number of Prisoners of War already engaged for this purpose in London, because of the billeting difficulties involved, but I am glad to be able to announce that, as a result of consultations with my right hon.


Friends the Minister of Labour and National Service and the Secretary of State for War, it has now been possible to arrange for the employment of 400 soldiers to assist in the movement of coal from Government stocks and in the distribution of coal to householders. This new arrangement came into operation this morning.

Sir R. Tasker: May I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his personal visit to my constituency and for his endeavours to mitigate the hardships which have been inflicted upon people there? May I also express the hope that he will be unceasing in his efforts to the same end?

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is a completely inadequate description of the very serious situation from which many people in London are suffering in this cold spell, and that his idea that women, who have been at work all day in factories, can then go, pay cash and carry coal some distance to their houses is really an insult? Will he take early steps to improve the distribution of coal in London, especially while this serious cold spell lasts?

Major Lloyd George: If I may say so, I do not think my hon. Friend listened very carefully to my reply—

Mr. Astor: I listened to every word.

Major Lloyd George: —because it was not the main part of my reply that the cash-and-carry scheme was a cure for this trouble. If my hon. Friend had listened, he would have heard that the prime difficulty is labour, and that steps had been taken, which came into force this morning, to help to put that situation right. I have been to my hon. Friend's constituency, and know what the situation is there.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is the Minister satisfied that this extra amount of labour will be adequate? Is he aware that there are families in London with priorities who have children seriously ill and yet have been unable to get any coal for weeks and that the situation is very critical in large areas of London; and is he really sure that an extra 400 people will be adequate for handling the situation for all London?

Major Lloyd George: If it is not adequate, I can assure my hon. Friend that more men will be obtained, because one

main trouble, as my hon. Friend knows, has been the weather, and it has been added to this week, because the condition of the roads in some districts has been such that no horse-drawn vehicles could leave at all.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay special attention to Edinburgh, which I think comes within his jurisdiction, where large numbers of people live in tenements and on separate floors, and where, in a great many cases, the coal distributors do not deliver to individual apartments?

Major Lloyd George: I will pay special attention to Edinburgh. I have already looked into the case, but if my right hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, some reports were rather exaggerated. With regard to the question of tenements, this is a difficult question even in peace time, and, in war, with a depleted and much older labour force, it is not so easy to get men to carry coal up six flights of stairs.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that this trouble is not confined to London or anywhere else, but that it is country-wide; and will he take early steps to improve the distribution of coal? An additional 400 people will not assist either Birmingham or Scotland.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot agree that the situation in the country is as my hon. Friend described. London has been in a particularly difficult position because of the events of last summer. I do not think people in any part of the country would object to London getting special attention, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, with the means at my disposal—and this industry, as well as others, suffers from a shortage of labour—everything possible will be done.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that women are being allowed sixpennyworth of coal, and can he say how often they can get this sixpennyworth and how long he estimates it to last?

Major Lloyd George: I think my hon. Friend rather misunderstands the position. The cash-and-carry scheme was put forward in order to enable people who could fetch their own coal to do so, and these sixpennyworths of coal, to which my hon. Friend refers—I think he saw it in a newspaper this morning—obviously refer to very small quantities.


Nobody in my Ministry would suggest that sixpennyworth of coal is all they are to have.

Mr. Bevan: Is the Minister aware that, as a consequence of this House refusing to pass a rationing scheme, the present situation falls most hardly upon poor people, who often have no alternative source of heating or cooking, and that there is especial hardship where there are large families? Will the Minister therefore see that instructions are given that, in the present emergency, coal distributors will give first attention to poor people, who can buy and stock only in small quantities?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will remember that a scheme was drawn up which gave priorities (a) to the small man, who could not stock in summer, and (b) to those who suffered special hardship through bomb damage. What I would emphasise is that, even if there had been a rationing scheme—with which I personally did not agree—it would have been physically impossible on certain days this week in particular to deliver any ration at all.

Mr. Astor: Will the Minister seriously go into the question of using more prisoner-of-war labour in London; and, when he visits my constituency again, will he show me the usual courtesy and let me know so that I can meet him?

Major Lloyd George: I was most anxious to find out things as they actually were, and, if I was guilty of any discourtesy, I apologise. I found out what the situation was and everything possible will be done to meet it. As regards the prisoner-of-war labour, and the difficulty of accommodation, if my hon. Friend casts his mind back about a week, he will remember the agitation to prevent prisoners coming to London at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (VISITS TO FRANCE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PEIHICK-LAWRENCE:

89. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now make a statement regarding the provision of facilities for Members of Parliament to visit France.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): Owing to the general interest in this Question I have been given permission to make this short statement in the absence of my right hon. Friend.
His Majesty's Government have been giving careful attention to this matter, and I am glad to be able to say that the transport position is such that it is now possible to afford facilities for travel to France which, the Government hope, will be satisfactory to hon. Members. In the first place, if a delegation of Members of Parliament of any party should be invited by a corresponding political party in France to meet them, the hon. Members invited will be given facilities to travel by air, subject, of course, to military requirements. Secondly, a limited number of air and sea-rail passages will be made available each week for hon. Members who wish to visit France. These places will be distributed by ballot under arrangements which are being made in consultation with Mr. Speaker. Detailed information can be obtained through the usual channels. It will, of course, be necessary for each hon. Member travelling under the latter scheme to apply individually for an exit permit and a French visa in the usual way, and make his own arrangements for accommodation in France.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to know whether this answer applies to Members of Parliament who want to visit the war zones in France, or does it apply only to the parts of France which are already well within Allied occupation?

Miss Wilkinson: The war zones raise another question.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the accommodation situation in Paris particularly, and in France generally, is very serious indeed, and that there is also the question of obtaining rations? Could the Foreign Office do anything towards arranging accommodation for any British visitors who obtain the necessary permits to proceed to France, either going to Paris or to any other parts?

Miss Wilkinson: This Question refers to Members who wish to visit France on private affairs, and they must, therefore, themselves make what arrangements they can.

Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the fact that this is undoubtedly a Government decision, may I ask whether it means that the Government have turned down the suggestion of sending to France a delegation representing the House of Commons; and can my right hon. Friend say whether, in fact, permission has been given to Members of Parliament to go to France since this matter was first raised in the House of Commons?

Miss Wilkinson: If the hon. Member will read the answer he will see that such questions as he raises will have to be put through the usual channels, in consultation with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Granville: The point is that we are sending an official delegation to Italy and another to Russia. Is it the intention to send an official delegation to France from the House of Commons?

Miss Wilkinson: That is an entirely different matter. Here we are merely concerned with the question which has been raised of whether Members who wish to go to France on their own affairs, whatever these may be, can be granted facilities.

Mr. A. Bevan: I am sure the House is delighted with the statement made by the right hon. Lady, but may I ask something relating to the mechanics of it? We understand that Members are to ballot for places. Are those places to be nontransferable, because if they are transferable a sort of Parliamentary currency, a sort of exchange and mart, might arise. Do I understand that if a Member is successful in the ballot he is not entitled to transfer his place to anybody else?

Miss Wilkinson: The arrangements will be like those of any other ballot, such as the ballot for subjects in Debate; that is, an extra number will be balloted for, and if a Member who has been successful falls out, the next one in the ballot will have the opportunity.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is it quite impossible for the Government to assist hon. Members to get accommodation, particularly in Paris, in view of the fact that I gather that the Americans have taken most of it? Surely it should be possible to make arrangements for a little accommodation to be alloted to the British.

Miss Wilkinson: I think the Governmen can hardly set up a Cook's tourist agency for the benefit of Members of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Fourth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Biscuits (Charges) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O. 1944, No. 1380), presented on 16th January, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to it, on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference of the Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

12.20 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the amendment to Clause 33, page 32, line 7, standing in the name of Mr. Secretary Johnston, and of the new Clause (Provision as to superannuation rights of contributory employees) and of the amendments to Schedule 5, page 44, line 32, column 3, and Schedule 5, page 45, line 34, column 3, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Morrison.
The first Amendment referred to in this Motion is little more than a drafting one, but it does involve the payment of money from the public funds to councils in Scotland. The second, third and fourth Amendments have been put down in view of the undertaking given on the Committee Stage to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden).

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE 33.—(Temporary provisions as to expenses of registration.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 32, line 7, at end, add:
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) for the words 'registration officers' there shall be substituted the words 'councils appointing registration officers';
(b) for the reference to section fifteen of the Act of 1918 there shall be substituted a reference to the provision substituted therefor by section forty-three of that Act; and
(c) for the reference to subsection (3) of section fourteen of the Act of 1943 there shall be substituted a reference to the subsection substituted therefor by section twenty-three of the said Act."

This is really a drafting Amendment. The existing Clause does not properly fit the existing legislative provisions in Scotland. In particular, money in England is paid to registration officers, whereas in Scotland it is paid to the councils who


employ them, and therefore we think it right to clarify the position by moving this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Superannuation Rights of Contributory Employees.)

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any contributory employee or local Act contributor who received in respect of work done by him in the standard year as returning officer at a local government election, other than an election to fill a casual vacancy, or in connection with the preparation of a register of electors under the Act of 1918 or jurors' book, remuneration, otherwise than as part of an inclusive salary continuing to be received by him, shall be entitled to contribute a sum in respect of that remuneration to the appropriate superannuation fund in respect of any year in which, by reason only of the Act of 1943 or this Act being in force he is not required to do such work; and for the purpose of computing in accordance with the provisions of section eight of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, the average remuneration of any contributory employee or of calculating the superannuation allowance of any local Act contributor under a local Act scheme, he shall be deemed to have received in respect of service rendered in any year, in respect of which such contributions were made by him the remuneration by reference to which the contributions were calculated.
(2) A person otherwise entitled under subsection (1) of this section to make contributions to a superannuation fund in respect of any year shall not be so entitled if he receives in respect of work done in that year by him under the Act of 1943 and this Act (otherwise than as part of an inclusive salary) remuneration greater than that in respect of which he would be entitled to make the contributions.
(3) Where a person makes a contribution under the said subsection (1) in respect of any year he shall not be required or entitled to make, in respect of that year, any contribution under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, in respect of the remuneration received by him (otherwise than as part of an inclusive salary) in respect of work done by him in that year under the Act of 1943 or this Act and the said remuneration shall be disregarded for the purpose of computing, in accordance with the provisions of section eight of the said Act of 1937, his average remuneration (if he is a contributory employee) or of calculating his superannuation allowance under a local Act scheme (if he is a local Act contributor).
(4) In this section the expressions 'contributory employee,' 'local Act contributor,' 'local Act Scheme' and appropriate superannuation fund,' have the same meanings, respectively, as in the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, except that in rela-

tion to a local Act contributor the last mentioned expression means the superannuation fund in the benefits of which he is entitled to participate; and the expression 'standard year' means, in relation to work done by any person as returning officer at a local government election, the last year before the year nineteen hundred and forty in which such work was done by him, and, in relation to work done by any person in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or jurors' book, the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland references to the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937, shall be substituted for references to the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
During the Committee stage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) moved a Clause which we accepted in principle but desired to redraft. We have now redrafted it, and I trust that he will agree that it meets his point. It is a substantial point. If this Clause were not included it would mean that persons who have paid money into superannuation funds under existing legislation, and in particular under two war-time Acts passed in 1940 and 1943, would be deprived of any ultimate benefit from those payments. The two Acts to which I have referred appear to afford adequate precedents for this new Clause. As the matter is rather complicated it may be that the Committee will not desire a detailed explanation of the Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, this Clause has been moved in accordance with an undertaking given on the Committee stage in pursuance of which I withdrew the Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) and I had set down. This new Clause does appear to bring about what was intended to be brought about by the Clause which my hon. Friend and I put down, and that being so I think it is unnecessary for me to enter into the rather complicated details of this matter, and that it will be sufficient for me to say that I, and I am sure my hon. Friend, are grateful to the Lord Advocate for the manner in which he has met us, and I think that I can assure him that those whose rights would


otherwise have been interfered with will share the feelings of gratitude which I have expressed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 44, line 32, column 3, after "except," insert "section two and except."
This Amendment and the succeeding one are really consequential on the new Clause. They do not touch the same exact point, but they deal with practically the same matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 45, line 34, column 3, after "Act," insert "except section two."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, in Committee and on recommittal, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Business premises applications on behalf of service voters by spouse or business manager.)

(1) An application for the registration of any person in the business premises register to be comprised in the May, 1945, register or the annual register, may, if at the time of the application that person is a member of the forces or a seaman, be made on that person's behalf by that person's spouse, or if that person is not married or is separated from the spouse, or the spouse is a member of the forces, a seaman or a war worker abroad, by the manager of that person's business.
(2) Any person registered in the business premises register in pursuance of an application made under this section shall not be entitled to vote in person in respect of that registration, but shall be entered in the absent voters list and entitled to appoint a proxy, and shall be entitled to vote by post or by proxy accordingly:

Provided that no ballot paper shall be sent to a person so registered for the purpose of voting by post except in pursuance of a request or application made by that person.
(3) Subsection (3) and (so far as it relates to appointments of proxies or cancellations of such appointments) subsection (4) of section eighteen of this Act shall apply to the appointment and voting of proxies under this section and to the cancellation of such appointments as they apply to the appointment and voting of proxies under that section and the cancellation of such appointments.
(4) Any application made under this section for a person to he registered in the May,

1945, register shall be made in accordance with subsection (4) of section fourteen of this Act, and shall be treated accordingly as having been made also for the purposes of any election initiated in the month of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five;

Provided that the person making the application shall insert therein a declaration—

(a) that he or she is the spouse of the person on whose behalf it is made, or that he or she is the manager of that person's business and either that person is not married or the spouse is a member of the forces, a seaman or a war worker abroad or is separated from that person; and
(b) that that person is at the time of the application a member of the forces or a seaman.

(5) In this section references to the manager of a person's business shall be construed, in relation to any application made under this section on that person's behalf, as referring to the person who at the time of the application is carrying on on that person's behalf or as his partner the business, profession or trade of that person in respect of which the application is made; and the expression "war worker abroad" means a person registered or qualified to be registered in the service register for any constituency otherwise than as a member of the forces or a seaman.
(6) Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section fifteen of the Act of 1943 (which penalises persons making false statements in applications to be registered in the business premises register) shall apply in relation to an application under this section as if it were made by the person signing it on his own behalf.
(7) In the application of this section to persons disqualified as peers from registration as parliamentary electors—

(a) the reference in subsection (1) thereof to the May 1945 register and subsection (4) thereof shall not apply; and
(b) subsection (2) thereof and subsection (3) of section eighteen of this Act as applied by subsection (3) of this section shall have effect subject to any modifications prescribed by electoral registration regulations made under the following provisions of this Act for conferring on those persons rights as to the appointment of a proxy to vote at local government elections.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
In the course of the Committee stage a question was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) as to the method of claiming for the business vote in the case where the business voter was himself on service and might find it rather difficult


to make a claim. We recognised that a substantial point was involved. We had, of course, considered it before the postal voting Clauses were introduced during the Committee stage, but we had not at that stage dealt with this point, because we had found it impossible to get a really satisfactory scheme. We were, however, pressed on the point in Committee and agreed to reconsider the matter, and the present Clause is the result. We still find it impossible to get a really water-tight Clause, and I must therefore warn the House that while this Clause does go a very long way to meet the point it is not altogether flawless and I should not be surprised if various hon. Members were to see deficiencies in it, though probably we have already seen most of them ourselves. Therefore, the best I can do is to present this Clause as a workable one, but one which will not cover 100 per cent. of the cases, and will not necessarily work with precise smoothness in every possible contingency.
12.30 p.m.
The scheme of the Clause is that wherever there is a potential business voter in the Forces, or serving as a seaman or a war-worker abroad—the latter category is not mentioned in the Clause, but is included by reason of other provisions in other legislation—then his spouse or, if he has not a wife, or is separated, then his manager, including his partner, may make an application on his behalf. We have limited the powers to make application, to one person in order to avoid difficulties which might well arise if two, or more, persons were given joint power to make application, and the application will be accompanied by a declaration of the qualification of the spouse or partner, as the case may be—that she is a spouse or partner—and that the voter, on whose behalf the application is made, is on service. That application must be made before 28th February, and on its being made, and admitted, the voter is put on the register, on the absent voters' list. But that, of course, does not give him adequate facilities to record his vote, and it will then be for the voter himself to make a claim either for a postal ballot paper, or to have a proxy put on the register on his behalf.
We cannot allow the applicant to appoint a proxy on behalf of somebody else, and we do not think it right that

the applicant should supply the address to which the postal ballot is to be sent. The right person to do that is the applicant himself, but this application keeps the door open, and it will be possible for the voter himself after 28th February and, indeed, at any time down to the initiation of the election, and later, to put the matter right by having his proxy appointed, or asking for a postal ballot in appropriate circumstances. I think this goes as far as we can to meet the point and does, in fact, substantially meet the point. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend and those who supported him in this matter will agree that this Clause substantially meets their case.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In the Committee stage my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate undertook to look into this matter and to consider what could be done to safeguard the rights of the absent business voter. I appreciate that this is a matter of considerable complexity, and I welcome the new Clause as meeting the case which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) put forward, and am grateful to the Government for their action in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Single transferable vote.)

Notwithstanding anything in any previous statute if any local authority shall pass a resolution to the effect that it desires its election to be conducted on the principle of the single transferable vote the Minister shall make the necessary arrangements to that effect in the form of an order but no such order shall have effect unless a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Sir G. Mander.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Geoffrey Mander: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As I have several new Clauses on the Paper, may I ask are they to be taken together or should I confine myself, for the moment, to this first one?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the first one more or less embodied the main principle, but no doubt the others could be discussed at the same time. As they are consequential, I think it would be the most convenient way.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: On a point of Order. Would it be possible to safeguard the Amendment to Clause 4 about the election of aldermen which deals with a separate point and comes up later?

Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of the House. But if the principle is not accepted in the first new Clause, then the other two are bound to fall.

Sir G. Mander: I think it would be more convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we did take them all together. This is a very modest proposal indeed. Some of us entertained high hopes of what might result from the Speaker's Conference, but we know now that nothing came of it, so far as Proportional Representation was concerned. I venture to think that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party were unwise in the decision they came to, as were the Liberal Party in 1918 when the matter rested in their hands. However, that is past history, and it is not possible now to reconsider it. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to what is surely a most modest and reasonable suggestion. It is nothing more than to allow local aulhorities, if they so wish, after giving one month's notice to each member, and by a three-fifths majority, to try the experiment of carrying out their elections by a system of Proportional Representation. If, after a trial of six years, they are unhappy about it, it would be open to them to rescind it and to go back to the present system.
There is no point whatever in describing the system of Proportional Representation; we all take that for granted. The mechanics of it, are, I think, well understood, and I do not want to give a number of examples. I should however like to be permitted to give just two, in the sphere of local government, to indicate the sort of difficulties that arise. In 1937, for instance, at the annual one-third rotation election in one large Lancashire city, the Conservatives secured 25 seats with a total vote of 98,000, whereas Labour obtained six seats with a total of 64,000. In the same year, in a Yorkshire city, Labour secured 11 seats with 37,000 votes, an actual minority of the votes, whereas the Progressives, with 39,000 votes, secured only five seats. One could give any number of such examples in the Parliamentary sphere and in the local govern-

ment sphere. To many of us, it does not seem really consistent with truly democratic methods and a proper system of representation that people so unrepresentative of the popular will should be elected.
I am not asking for a reversal of the system; I am only asking that facilities should be granted to those local authorities who agree to make the experiment, and that they should be permitted to do it. What precedents are there in other countries? One could give precedents, as regards local government—that is all I am talking about now—in Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Holland. But let us confine ourselves to the British Empire which knows how to do these things as well as or, I think, better than any other country in the world. In the Cape of Good Hope Province of South Africa, and New Zealand, local councils have optional powers, such as proposed by this Clause, to apply the single transfer of votes to their elections. The same applies to Canada, in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba. I think, therefore, we can say that this is not a novelty so far as British people are concerned. They are using the system, and they are finding it sound and useful in all parts of the British Empire.
I ask the House to bear in mind that we are not asking for anything on a Parliamentary basis. That has been dropped for the time being. We are not asking that all local elections should be on this basis. We are merely asking that an experiment should be permitted in the cases I have referred to. Surely, it is the very essence of British development, by trial and error, to try a thing and see whether it is an improvement on something which has gone before. If it is not an improvement, then we can go back. No one could claim that the last word has been said on the matter of representation of the people by the British system as it exists at this moment. It may be that experiment will show that Proportional Representation is not an effective method, that the country does not like it and the local councils do not like it. In that case, no harm will have been done, and we will be precisely where we were.
I hope, of course, that as the result of such experiment as might take place under this Clause, that the country will


be gradually converted to the view that this is the more sensible system, if we want the House of Commons and the local councils to be a real mirror of the people and to represent their will in correct proportion to the numbers of the voters and not as the result of a conflict of parties giving hugely exaggerated representation to one party and very much diminished representation to another, as at the present time. It may be that many hon. Members here hope that as a result of this experiment the people will come to say that Proportional Representation is an unsatisfactory system, and that the present one is better. I am not pre-judging that; I am willing to leave that to the result of experience, but what I would ask, and ask most seriously, of the Government, is that, having rejected all the larger things, many of us hope they will look favourably upon this modest and reasonable suggestion that is now being put before the House.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to emphasise the point which my hon. Friend made that this is quite a different matter from the very large Parliamentary question that was decided against by the House some time ago. It is a matter indeed which was not discussed in Mr. Speaker's Conference because it was felt that it was totally outside the scope of the measures that were there considered. But it is a matter which falls within the scope of this Bill. It is a matter in which, I think, we may ask many hon. Members, who are not prepared to consider Proportional Representation in Parliamentary matters, to be willing to allow this experiment to be tried in municipal government. There is an immense difference between the problems of municipal government and the way in which they should be dealt with, and the problems which come before Parliament. A very large proportion of the work of city councils and other municipal authorities has no element of party controversy in it. It is a question of getting efficient, honest and enlightened Government and we want for that, the services of all the best people.
12.45 p.m.
Unfortunately, under the present system of elections for municipalities, it

is impossible for a very large number of citizens to have any hope of election in the wards in which they would naturally be candidates. This applies not to one party but to all parties alike. There are sections of London where no one holding certain political views would have any chance at present of getting elected to the council of the metropolitan borough in which they reside. There are numbers of councils consisting of only one political party and that is not a healthy thing. I think every one, however strong their party views, would recognise that it is very important that there should be other points of view represented on the council, even if they are the wrong points of view, in order that public opinion should be expressed and objections met, and the policy of the party in power subjected to reasonable criticism from its opponents. It is a bad thing that criticism should be driven underground and should not have expression on the body itself.
It is also a bad thing that the opportunity of service should not be given to a number of public-spirited citizens who are willing to serve their towns, their county council, or their district council, but who cannot honestly fit in with the party views of the particular party in the area in which they stand. This applies not to one point of view or to one political party but equally to all. We can all think of different parts of the country where, whatever our own political point of view might be, we should know that there was no chance there whatever for any one of our particular view being elected to a particular municipality. That is a thing we should profoundly regret. It is of great importance that we should strengthen local government, that we should encourage the largest possible number of public-spirited citizens to take part, whatever their political views. If we give the opportunity of this method of election to the municipalities, we shall be opening up an avenue for service which will be for the good, not merely of the individual citizens but of the whole community, and will make for a wider basis for our municipal life. It is not a healthy thing, however good a party may be, that that party alone should control, year after year, the municipal life of its district without any opportunity for other parties—I will not say replacing them, but putting their point of view inside the municipality, and taking


some part, even though it be a minor part, in the work of the administration.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Clause referred to the British Empire. We can look also across the water to the great United States of America, and see there with what remarkable success this principle of Proportional Representation in municipal life has been applied. In the case of New York, it has given the opportunity for service to people who were denied it under the rule of Tammany. It challenged a corrupt administration and it brought in New York City a new hope into municipal life. In the great city of Cincinnati it has also been adopted with striking success. A very interesting instance of it occurred, not in America, but in Italy in the course of last year. One of the American officers in charge of a district in Southern Italy had recently, in consultation with the military authorities, to decide that it was desirable to have an election of representatives of the town of Atri, who would co-operate with the military authorities and carry out the necessary work. He decided, being a citizen of Cincinnati, to introduce the principle of Proportional Representation into this local election. It was a town of some 22,000 inhabitants where the standard of education was less than in any town in our country because ten per cent. of the inhabitants were believed to be illiterate. Yet the election was carried through on the method of Proportional Representation with great satisfaction and only about two per cent. of the votes were spoiled. This officer, Captain Garrigan, said the people loved the whole thing, and he had not heard a single word of complaint. If it can be done with such success in such difficult circumstances, with how much greater success could it be applied here with all the background of education we have in this country: I would beg the House to give the opportunity, which is all we ask, to local authorities if they so desire it to make this most valuable experiment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: This matter did not come specifically before the Speaker's Conference. I think it was within our terms of reference but it was not specifically discussed. We discussed Proportional Representation for Parliamentary elections and, having dis-

cussed that, the other matter, was not brought to our attention and we did not therefore, as a conference, express any views with regard to it. I am bound to say, however, having expressed my view at an early stage in this House in accordance with the line I took in the Speaker's Conference of opposition to Proportional Representation for Parliamentary purposes, that the same views which I had with regard to Parliamentary representation apply to local government representation. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) gave us very good reasons, in his view, why this method should he adopted. In the first place, he wanted us to follow the example set by certain cities in the United States, and he described in very glowing terms the wonderful results that followed from the adoption of Proportional Representation in local government in that country. Of course we cannot check up on his statements; it may be that he is correct, and that it produced very wonderful and beneficial effects in that country, but democracy as it is worked in this country is totally different from democracy as it is worked across the other side of the Atlantic. Therefore, even if his statements are accurate—I am not doubting his good faith—even if there is nothing to be said on the other side as regards the working of this system of Proportional Representation in the municipalities of the United States of America, yet I would be very loath to assume that, transferred to this country, they would necessarily produce equal advantages over our present system.

Sir G. Mander: What about the British Dominions?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If I remember rightly, it was principally America that was mentioned by the hon. Member to whom I am referring.

Sir G. Mander: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? He has picked on America, but I pointed out that it was widely used in the British Empire, in Canada, in South Africa and New Zealand, and the remarks that he has made surely cannot apply to the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I referred to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I was not referring, at that moment, to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who is


a Member of the Liberal Party who moved this new Clause. I was referring to the hon. Member for the Combined Universities and I think I am within the recollection of the House in saying that his two principal arguments were, first, that it had been adopted with great success in the United States—I have already dealt with that—and second that it was a wonderful experiment, and that we should at least try it as an experiment. I gathered he was of the opinion that it had not been tried in this country before and that we should, at least, open the door for it.
I will come back to that in a few moments but, in the meanwhile, I will address myself, since I am especially asked to do so, to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the mover of this new Clause. He said that it applied in different parts of His Majesty's Dominions. That may be so, and again it may be true—but I am doubtful—that it has been an extraordinary success there. Even there, however, the way democracy works, particularly in Municipal matters, differs from the way it is worked in this country, and I do not think the Mother of Parliaments should go out of its way to adopt a plan for this country because in other parts of the world, even in our own Dominions, it may or may not have proved a great success.
Let me give my reasons generally for disapproving of the system which is here proposed. Though it is a little hidden, in the course of Sub-section a (c), the second of the two new Clauses, appears what, in fact, is the proposal—that we should sweep away our present wards for municipal purposes, and that the Secretary of State should divide the area of the local authority up into a new lot of divisions which may or may not be an amalgamation of certain wards, because quite clearly a single ward is not large enough to effect the purposes which those who desire the transferable vote have in mind. So there is a very large revolution involved, and the abolition for local government elections of the ward system is implied in the creation of the transferable vote. It is the same kind of thing, of course, to which we objected in the Parliamentary elections; that one of the essential antecedents to the possibility of Proportional Representation is the over-riding of the Parliamentary constituency by some large area to return a great number of candidates at one time, and the counterpart

to that in the proposal for Proportional Representation in a local government area is this Sub-section 2 (c), which means that the ward system, for the purpose of local government, is to be abolished and, in its place, there are to be these new areas which the Secretary of State is to create. That would make a considerable muddle. In the first place, as I understand it, the ward system would still remain for parliamentary elections. Therefore you would have different areas for the municipal elections from those you would have for the parliamentary elections, which would introduce a complication.
Now in regard to this matter of Proportional Representation producing this marvellous effect, that instead of crisscross party politicians, you will have a marvellous selection of the very best men for the locality which you have never had before, I ask, Is that really the case? What you will get by Proportional Representation is a lot of log-rolling in order to get second preferences. Then you are going to get great complications at the time of an election and, finally, when most elaborate calculations have been gone through, you will have a number of people who may or may not be widely different from those you have under the simple system. I have never been able to understand why it was thought that Proportional Representation was a great reform that would produce the marvellous results that its supporters, in their enthusiasm, anticipated.
1.0 p.m.
I come, in conclusion, to the question of the experiment. It may or may not be known to the mover and supporter of the Clause that Proportional Representation has already been tried in Scotland. In the election for an educational authority there was in Scotland, between 1918 and 1929, a provision very similar to what is being proposed by this new Clause. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the result was that it made practically no difference to the political representation so far as politics entered into the election, that it made practically no difference with regard to the personalities who were returned and that it created a considerable muddle. The electors were confused by this system, which they did not thoroughly understand. There was no advantage and at


the end of 11 years this experiment, having been tried, was regarded by almost everybody concerned as having worsened the system of election, and it was abandoned. I believe that the idea that it is a great reform is just moonshine. I do not believe in the merits which are attributed to it by its enthusiastic supporters. That is my theory, and in view of the fact that it was adopted for a local authority in Scotland, and later discarded, I hope the House and the Government will share with me the view that this idea ought to be rejected.

Sir Percy Harris: No one has greater respect and affection for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) than I, but if he will forgive me for saying so I think that of late he has become conservative and suspicious of new ideas and experiments. The main thesis of his argument was that this was a novelty and that it should, therefore, be turned down. His idea was that we do not like the change and that we should carry on in the old way, even if there is a strong argument for the experiment. After all, he said, it is only an experiment—

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I did not say anything of the kind. I do not regard this as a novelty; it is not a new experiment. The whole point of my speech was that it had been tried and had been a failure, and that for that reason we should not adopt it.

Sir P. Harris: That makes it worse. My right hon. Friend takes his view on the fact that there has been one little experiment in education, and on that builds up his whole case. He is so suspicious of new ideas that he resorts to picking out a tiny experiment and ignores all the other experiments which have been carried out in other parts of the world as not carrying any weight at all. Let me reiterate some of the countries where it has been tried. They are practical, progressive States like Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland. This system has been used in many parts of America. But my right hon. Friend said that America does not matter, that America is a new country and that old England must not learn anything from the United States. He said we must isolate ourselves, put ourselves into a world apart

and ignore the experiments which have been tried in other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander) mentioned New York, one of the greatest and most progressive cities in the world. You have only to visit New York, with its sky-scrapers and its atmosphere of novelty, to see that it has some claim to be regarded as an important centre of city government. It was notorious under the old system, for various reasons, that the city government of New York was corrupt, rotten to the core. Tammany became a by-word and then, very wisely, men of good will, of all parties, who wanted a clean system of government in New York, came together and made the successful experiment of Proportional Representation. The government of that city was cleaned up, and New York is now a well governed city.
I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have treated seriously an experiment made in the Dominions. I can understand him treating foreign countries with contempt, but I would like to remind him that both Australia and New Zealand have Labour Governments, which are very progressive in their ideas. For years in both Australia and New Zealand they have had on the Statute Book legislation for making experiments of this character. I maintain, quite apart from the fact that there have been experiments and experience in using this machinery successfully and effectively in other parts of the world, that there is an overwhelming case for it in this country. For some time local government has been very much held in suspense. Great powers have been taken by Government Departments to override local councils. You have it in the police and the fire brigade: you have this attempt to centralise much of the machinery of local government at Whitehall. It is very important that we should satisfy ourselves that the system of local government must be made as good as it can be if we are to resist this attack on local government by authorities in London, who want to see greater powers concentrated in Whitehall, in Government Departments. It is notorious that in many parts of the country the best men do not get on to the local councils. In London out of 28 borough councils, seven are limited to one party. In other boroughs no man or woman who is


not a Conservative has the ghost of a chance, however qualified or competent, of getting on to the local council. In some of the councils of the East end of London no man or woman who does not belong to the Socialist Party, however keen or competent, has the ghost of a chance of getting on to the council. I had this experience in my own borough, in Bethnal Green, where, for six years, nobody could get on to the council who did not belong to my party. Labour was excluded, there was no opposition or criticism. It was a one-party totalitarian authority. Now the position has been completely reversed; all the members of the Borough Council are Labour members. Again, there is no opposition or organised criticism. The whole thing is run by a caucus.
The case against any change in our system is that it is better for the Government to have a large majority. There is the suspicion that if this experiment were made for Parliamentary purposes it might lead to too many groups. But that does not apply to local government. Local authorities have to carry out the laws entrusted to them by Parliament. They have to see whether the streets are well paved and well lit; they have to see whether housing is good and that education is properly administered; they have to see that there is no undue influence in appointments which are made. Undoubtedly, in some parts of the country great social pressure is brought to bear on authorities, when making appointments, to try to ensure that the person appointed belongs to a particular party. The safeguard against that is to have strong opposition, criticism and discussion. You can have that only if every party has a reasonable chance of getting representation. I think this reform is vital if we are to get the best out of local government.
I am sorry that the House as a whole does not appear to be interested in this matter of the representation of our people. I should have thought that after nine years Parliament would have been interested in an issue like this, particularly when it applies to local government. I am satisfied that sooner or later this reform will come. It may not come through this Parliament, but I think that in the end the common sense of the people will demand that we should have the best local government we can, and that in

order to get it we must have on our councils the best men and women of all political parties so that each and all can make a contribution. I think it would be unfortunate and a tragedy if only those men and women who could get on to a local council were those who were members of particular political parties. Therefore, I hope this new Clause will not be turned down by the Government and trieated as a small affair. We are modest in our demand; we do not ask for a complete revolution, or that this experiment should be compulsorily applied to all parts of the country, but that if a local council wants to make this change, deciding that it is in their best interests, they should be permitted by Parliament to make it.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: I am sorry I was not here when this new Clause was moved, but I would like to say a few words about it now because I was elected to Parliament under the system of the transferable vote. What puzzles me is that anybody should believe in the magic formula of "one man, one vote," and oppose the single transferable vote. Take the cases—and they are numerous—of three-cornered Parliamentary contests, as a result of which a Member is elected, not by the majority of the votes. Is it not an abuse of language to say of the people who have voted for candidate No. 3—say a Labour or a Liberal candidate—that in their case, it is "one man, one vote"?
1.15 p.m.
Quite apart from the members that the new method may produce, I regard it as a great thing because of the psychological effect that it will have on the voter. It will give him a sense that his vote is a real thing, because the mechanics of it are such that every voter has three or four or more choices, but has only one vote, and his vote is effective. It is impossible to say under the system that his vote has been split, or that anyone's vote is wasted. I believe that, once you have this reform and it is explained that under it the vote will have a fair shot at the target and will not be wasted, it will get rid of all this talk of frustration. When I am told that all this is confusing and difficult, I say that it is not necessary for voters to understand the complicated formula. All they have to do is to put 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 against their favourite horses


and, whatever the experience of Scotland in the old days, a generation brought up on football pools will not find any difficulty in doing so.

Mr. McLean Watson: I appreciate that the supporters of the Clause have asked for the minimum that they could have asked for. We cannot say that they are extravagant in the claim that they are making. They are asking that local authorities should be permitted to have the system of the alternative vote if they so desire. My quarrel with them is that it should be left to the local authority to decide whether or not the alternative vote should be adopted. If they had "gone the whole hog," and asked that the system should apply to all local government elections, I am not sure that I should not have been supporting them. I have no particular prejudice against Proportional Representation. I believe it is the fairest system of voting. I have no doubt it is a complicated system, but I think our people are intelligent enough to understand a complicated system of voting.
My objection to Proportional Representation for Parliamentary elections is the difficulty, especially in Scotland, of a sufficient number of candidates being able to cover the sort of constituency which would return three, four or five Members to this House, but when we come to local government elections we are dealing with an entirely different proposition. I am sorry that I must disagree completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) with our experience in Scotland of Proportional Representation in connection with the election of education authorities. The Local Government Bill of 1929, which placed education authorities under the county councils, got the stiffest opposition not only from Labour but from Conservative Members as well. We were opposed to the system being changed at that time and I am not quite sure that, if the opinion of Scotland was asked to-day, they would not go back to the old system of Proportional Representation. I am surprised at my right hon. Friend going all over the world for illustrations when there is one in his own country which has worked quite satisfactorily. Men and women were asked to come forward because of their interest in education, and they were elected, and from the first day to the last

I never heard any complaint that the system was working unfairly. All sections of the community, Protestant, Catholic, Socialist or Conservative, got their proportion of representation. There was no muddle.
I have been surprised to hear it said that people would require to be educated up to the system. We did not have it for very long but comparatively few mistakes were made by those who recorded their votes. I should have no hesitation in saying that no harm would be done to this country from the governmental point of view if our local elections were on the system of Proportional Representation. The constituencies are never so large in connection with local government that the candidates are not known all over the place. Try to imagine the North of Scotland sending four or five Members to the House of Commons. What area would they cover—Orkney and Shetland, Caithness, Sutherland, Cromarty, Inverness and the Western Islands? It is only there where there are physical impossibilities for candidates to be known that the system of Proportional Representation is not applicable. As far as local elections are concerned, I do not think there is any difficulty at all. I am sorry to differ from my right hon. Friend but it was not because of any breakdown in the system of election of education authorities that it was abandoned. It was the desire of a Tory Parliament at that time to change the system. If it had not been for the votes of English Members the change would not have been made. We prefer to have our own system and I believe that the people of Scotland would accept it in preference to the control that they have now through the county councils. I cannot support the Clause as it stands. I can see muddle arising through each local council deciding whether or not it will adhere to the present system or adopt Proportional Representation. I think hon. Members might have gone the whole hog and asked that local elections should be without exception on the system of Proportional Representation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander) is, of course, the best possible sales talker for Proportional Representation in any form whatever, and he always gives a very rosy picture which might convert those who


have not much closer experience of the system, which probably some of us have. It is easy if you start producing particular examples of arithmetical absurdities, to show that no system which is not Proportional Representation can possibly be regarded as theoretically perfect, but after all the problem of democracy, and the object of voting, is not to secure a kind of mathematical justice and a mathematical picture of a kaleidoscopic electorate. It is the job of getting government done in the simplest possible way. My right hon. Friend referred to the Continent and to the British Empire, just as the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) tried to draw an idyllic picture of conditions in poor, battered, war-torn, devoted Italy, where some amiable American, wondering how to deal with the mess that Mussolini and the Allied armies had made, conceived the bright idea of introducing the Cincinnatti experiment. No one complained, but then for some years in Italy they have been used not to complain. To take an exceptional case of a pettifogging town in Italy and talk as if that could be applied—

Miss Rathbone: That is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) did.

Miss Wilkinson: Anyone who sits for Combined Universities ought to produce arguments a little more relevant.

Sir P. Harris: The right hon. Lady has ignored New York.

Miss Wilkinson: Not in the least. I am coming to it. As it happens, I have a good deal of experience. I am not dealing with Proportional Representation in general, but as I have seen it actually working. I was present at a number of elections under the Weimar Republic—

Sir P. Harris: That is not the system.

Mr. Harvey: Surely, the right hon. Lady realises that the German system is utterly different from the single transferable vote. She objected to me mentioning a recent Italian experiment based on the single transferable vote, and she is deluding the House by suggestinǵ that her experience of the very different Weimar list, system, to which we are entirely opposed, is a reason why we should not consider allowing the single transferable vote.

1.30 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: The difficulty about making a speech on this subject is that no one will allow you to get on with your argument because they always want to interrupt in the middle of a sentence. If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me, I was about to say—in fact he took the words out of my mouth—that this was the list system. It was not the single transferable vote. Whenever one gets into a discussion about Proportional Representation it is always curious the way in which the pea is never under the thimble which is on the table at that particular time. When the Leader of the Liberal Party lectures my right hon. Friend for being so conservative, I might remind him that none of the systems of Proportional Representation was introduced by Liberal Governments when they were in power, neither by the overwhelmingly successful Liberal Government of 1906 nor the Liberal Government in Canada under Mr. Mackenzie King. When the right hon. Gentleman points out that on the Bethnal Green Borough Council there were once 100 per cent. Liberal members and now there are 100 per cent. Labour, I must remind the leader of the Liberal Party, great democrat as he is, that perhaps the electorate of Bethnal Green actually wanted the change over from 100 per cent. Liberal to 100 per cent. Labour, and therefore just voted that way. When it comes to talking about a choice of this, or any other, kind, I always think that the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) ought, at any rate, to keep quiet, because he can get into Parliament with only 5,206 votes.

Mr. Reakes: Do not be personal.

Miss Wilkinson: After all, we are discussing the practical way in which these things work.

Petty-Officer Herbert: It seems to me that the right hon. Lady is showing a most woeful ignorance. If her assertion was correct, is not the only remedy that which is now being proposed?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I would point out that this is a new Clause, and I do not think that either the Minister or private Members should endeavour to go into the position of any particular constituency.

Miss Wilkinson: I got led away because to me this is a most fascinating subject. I have been taking part in discussions on Proportional Representation ever since my under-graduate days. The Government will have to resist this new Clause. In its present form there has been added a requirement that any order for the conduct of the elections of local authorities on the principle of the single transferable vote shall be subject to an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. It is true that the single transferable vote is the best known system of Proportional Representation. It can only operate where the number of vacancies to be filled are two or more, and so it is distinct from the alternative vote which can apply to single member constituencies or wards. When the question was considered by the Speaker's Conference, it was rejected by 25 votes to four. On the Second Reading it was rejected on an Amendment. It can be argued, as has been argued during the course of this Debate, that there is not such a strong argument in regard to local authorities as there is when we are dealing with the Parliamentary system, since there it upsets that bedrock two-party system which most people regard as one of the fundamental factors in the success of our constitutional methods.
I am afraid that I have been tempted to be a little controversial when replying to the arguments that have been used, but I think that I shall find a much more general measure of agreement when I say that it is important that we should have local elections during the coming year. Whatever may be the effect of the prolonged absence of Parliamentary elections, their absence in local government is more serious. If we tried to work this new Clause with the best will in the world it is difficult to see how the division into much wider wards could be done in so short a time as to make it possible for the elections to take place in 1945. Any new system of voting is difficult to work. Even the football pools have had to go through an immense amount of advertising and explaining before they could be understood even by the gentlemen who put their money into them. There would be a great deal of difficulty in setting up the machinery for a new system of voting.
I agree with the point that was so well made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) when he said that whatever might be the merits of the sys-

tem itself, if we had a situation where some municipalities were adopting it and some were not, even if the system were perfect, we might get a hopeless confusion in everybody's mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it will be difficult enough to get these elections and everything else going in 1945, when the men are returning from the Forces and we are faced with so many other problems. To attempt to introduce this highly controversial system, and still more to make it permissive, would, in the view of the Home Office, make confusion worse confounded. Therefore, if we are to resume local elections at the earliest possible date, we think it is much more important to get them done satisfactorily than to experiment with such controversial methods of voting as those of Proportional Representation have proved to be.

Petty-Officer Herbert: The figures which the right hon. Lady gave about me are erroneous. She did not attempt to answer my argument about how, under the present system, millions of votes are wasted and made ineffective, producing a sense of frustration in the voter and a consequent lack of interest in Parliamentary and local elections. I argued that in a system of Proportional Representation every vote is effective.

Miss Wilkinson: I think that they were not so much arguments as a string of optimistic assertions and I do not share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's optimism. I can only say with regard to the Scottish experiment, where it applies to education authorities, that questions of education rouse the passions and interests of the people at more points than general questions of local government. I am assured that the experiment was not in fact so very successful in stimulating extra interest or encouraging new people to come forward, and that when the authorities concerned were asked to give their views on what had happened, there was only one exception to the general opinion that the sort of extra interest suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not in fact been aroused. There was only one authority that did not want to return to the previous system. We can all argue the matter point by point and say that this or that system may work here or there, but here we have a case that we can look at on our own doorstep. I am sorry if I made a mistake about the


hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures, but I took them from Dod's "Parliamentary Companion."

Mr. Pritt: I had intended merely to say a few words so as to show I was not deserting the cause, and I feared that we should all be told we were flogging a horse—I will not say a dead horse, but a horse which has been flogged many times already. One thing is clear, and that is that the House is still willing to misunderstand the question and take part in a general discussion, and, therefore, I will say a few words about it.
I would like to deal with the argument mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson). It was not his argument; indeed, he was refuting it. That is the suggestion that the system of Proportional Representation is too complicated for the ordinary elector to understand. The British elector, in spite of the people he sometimes elects, is a pretty intelligent person. He can understand how to win a war and how to build an Empire for hon. Gentlemen opposite to exploit, and the notion that he cannot understand a voting paper is an insult to the electorate such as we expect from the people opposite. I do not know where the suggestion came from in this Debate, but it is unjust, and many electors with far less general education than the ordinary man understand it without difficulty. I hope I will not be thought to be insulting in any way to the population of Ulster by saying that, by and large, after allowing for their standard of living and this and that little trouble, they certainly do not display a general range of intelligence and commonsense which is in any way superior to that of this island. I hope that that will not offend them. If it does, I am afraid that I cannot withdraw it. It is well known by those who had actual experience of Proportional Representation in Ulster—experience of being elected under it, and some of them of being defeated under it—that the ordinary Ulster peasant or worker had not the least difficulty in understanding the working of the system.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: Could my hon. and learned Friend say why they abolished the system?

Mr. Pritt: I cannot say why, but I imagine it was a Tory intrigue because it looked like giving minorities proper repre-

sentation. I want to answer one observation of the hon. Member for Dunfermline. He said that he would support a wider Amendment if it covered the whole local government system, but he was doubtful about it operating in patches. It is a wee bit hard to the supporters of Proportional Representation when they come forward with a scheme in this way. They have behind them the prestige of the first Speaker's Conference, which gave unanimous support for it. There was some measure of support from the second Speaker's Conference, which was in favour of it. It was only rejected by the House of Lords—which is always in favour of innovation and reform—when it was brought forward in 1918. With that measure of prestige, apart from the arguments in favour of the system, it is hard to be told that the present proposal is much too wide and sweeping. So they tried something a little smaller, and that was refused too. So, finally, they try the smallest instalment on earth to give it a real chance, and then up jumps the hon. Member for Dunfermline and says that we ought to be a little bit bolder.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Watson: In Scotland, I would point out, we did try to apply Proportional Representation universally.

Mr. Pritt: I am not complaining. It may be a perfectly good argument that the hon. Member is raising. All I am saying is that when we tried a bigger thing, somebody attacked us for being big, and when we tried something smaller, the hon. Member appeared to advance a serious argument against it. I am not attacking the Scottish proposal at all. I will deal a little later with the merits of the argument that the hon. Member advanced. What inflicts me upon the House for a little longer than usual is the speech of the right hon. Lady. She is not here at the moment, but I shall say exactly the same things as I would say if she were here.
First, let me say that I am glad she has recovered her health, but I am sorry that she has not recovered her manners. I hoped that she would have mellowed a little in her old age. On the contrary, she advanced to the House an argument which certainly does not represent a high mental age and which was certainly both flippant and insolent. She mentioned the


old argument that we did not want a mathematical representation of the electorate here and said, "We want a Government that will get the job done." I can, at any rate, agree with her that we want a Government that will get the job done, but none of the reactionary opponents of Proportional Representation, on whatever benches they sit and whatever their political history, have ever been able to explain what magic there is about a system of getting an accurate representation of the electorate in the House of Commons which will suddenly produce an impossible form of government. Until they do that, the arguments are not worth the paper they are written on or the time they take to enunciate. She said that the Liberals never introduced Proportional Representation. It is childish of her to say so, and it has the additional demerit that it is not even true. In 1918 the Liberals did introduce it, but the right hon. Lady's friends threw it out. She said also that perhaps the reason why Bethnal Green changed over from 100 per cent. Liberal to 100 per cent. Labour was that they wanted to be 100 per cent. Labour. That is another illustration of the right hon. Lady's childishness. I have not the exact figures, but I imagine that if you looked at the voting returns you would find that what Bethnal Green wanted to do was to return 30 per cent. Labour and 70 per cent. Liberal, or vice versa. I imagine also that Bethnal Green might have been better served if it had returned representatives on the basis of, say, 30 per cent. Liberal and 70 per cent. Labour. As it was, the existence of a nasty, ugly Fascist movement was more prominent in Bethnal Green than anywhere else.
The right hon. Lady also said that this is not the moment to introduce this system—it is the only moment we have to introduce this proposal—because it is necessary to proceed with the elections for these councils without undue delay. I quite agree with her, but, after all, this proposal is only permissive, and if it is put on the Statute Book, the boroughs can apply it if they wish to do so. Assuming a little commonsense in the boroughs, and personally I have very little difficulty in assuming it, I should imagine that if they looked at the matter and saw that it would not be practicable to invoke these powers at this election, they would

arrange to invoke them for the next election or for the one after. The right hon. Lady also said that it would be very difficult to work this system side by side with the other. I do not know about that. For very many people drink goes deeper than politics, but we have no difficulty in working the system of local option side by side with another system. I should have thought that it was really too childish an argument for the right hon. Lady, who also said that the Home Office thought it would be difficult to work Proportional Representation. I always find that if one wants to know what the country is really thinking, one should ask a Home Office expert on public opinion, and then turn his statements upside down. Then one will have the right answer.
The hon. and gallant Member, the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) asked the right hon. Lady to answer one argument, which he said was unanswerable. The right hon. Lady demonstrated, in a few well-chosen words, that the argument is indeed unanswerable. The argument was that there is a real waste of votes if you do not have Proportional Representation. The right hon. Lady tried to reply that the hon. and gallant Member was painting a paradise. There are very many graves on the road to paradise, and those of politicians are scattered along it, but it is no excuse for hell to suggest that what they really wanted was not paradise. It is literally true that if you take any reasonably-sized constituency, local or Parliamentary, which selects its Members in reasonable groups by the system of Proportional Representation, you get something like a 90 per cent. true representation of public opinion and something like 95 per cent. of the voters can really feel that their vote has had some effect or that they have voted for the winning candidate.
One has only to look at the vast majority of councils in the Southern counties of England or in borough councils like Bethnal Green, to see that you may pass your whole life without any notion of your vote ever being of the slightest use. I live in a Southern county. The only time my vote was ever of the slightest use was one occasion when it really was of complete use. I travelled down to my country cottage about six o'clock one morning in order to get there to record my vote. I did so, and I think my vote


was actually worth £150, because if I had not cast it, the Labour candidate would have lost his deposit. That is about as near as voters over about one-third of this country ever get to really affecting the government of their country. I do not wonder that the right hon. Lady was foolish enough to think she could answer the argument, and I do not wonder that she utterly failed.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I wish to support the proposed new Clause and to put forward a few arguments which ought to carry some weight with Members of this House who have not closed minds on this subject. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Lady's new definition of democracy. I have heard many definitions, but when she said that democracy was getting government done in the simplest possible way, I thought it was one of the widest definitions I have heard. I am sure Hitler would be pleased to endorse that definition.
I support Proportional Representation because I believe it is the most practical and sensible way of ensuring that Government represents as truly as possible the desires of the whole population. If one agrees in general terms that that is what Governments should do, and agrees that the mechanism of Proportional Representation produces this result, I cannot for one moment understand the argument against Proportional Representation. In fact, I have never yet seen a positive argument against Proportional Representation. What usually takes place is, as we have had to-day, all sorts of negative objections to it being put up. The proposed new Clause would apply Proportional Representation to local government where the circumstances are a little different from Parliamentary elections, and one of the reasons why many people have not felt disposed to support Proportional Representation for Parliamentary elections is because they feel that, whereas under the present system of voting in any particular constituency the result might not come right, taken over the whole country, what is gained on the roundabouts is lost on the swings, Conservative gains on the South Coast being counter-balanced by Labour gains in such areas as industrial Yorkshire.
That argument does not apply in local government where the areas are smaller and where you now get absurd anomalies

such as a council being 100 per cent. of one party or another. There is therefore more reason for applying Proportional Representation to local government than to Parliamentary government, for in the former the anomalies produced by the present system are more marked than in Parliamentary elections.
I wish to deal with some of the other objections that have been put up against Proportional Representation in general and to see how they apply in the local government field. The first argument is that it will increase the number of parties. Suppose it does. Suppose we get in a certain number of boroughs, where the councils have decided to apply Proportional Representation, a multiplication of parties; will that completely wreck the ship of state? I do not think it will. The application of Proportional Representation to a number of boroughs will prove whether or not this system will produce in this country a multiplication of parties. Personally, I feel that it will decide the argument. All the indications from outside are that Proportional Representation will not necessarily produce more parties. Secondly, the argument had always been brought against us that constituencies will become too large. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who spoke about the abolition of ward boundaries, as though there was something sacred about them, suggested that constituencies would be very big. If we amalgamated five wards in any borough I doubt whether we should get a constituency anything like as large as a Parliamentary constituency, and a person incapable of getting to know a constituency of this size is surely not fit to sit on a council at all.
Another argument which is always put up against Proportional Representation as part of the general case is that it does not give the elector an opportunity to decide a major or specific issue one way or the other. It is alleged that, as a result of an election it does not show what is actually in the mind of the people on some big and important issue. I do not think that is a valid objection, and even if it were it does not apply to local government. Local authorities are not called upon to make such big and far reaching decisions but


to carry out decisions which have been made by Parliament. Therefore that objection falls to the ground.
One final objection there is which is always made against Proportional Representation, whether in regard to national government or local government. It is, as the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that it gives opportunity for log rolling and wangling. I am not sure that this argument does not come from a lack of understanding how Proportional Representation works Under our present first-past-the-post system of voting, suppose we have in a local government ward two candidates, a Labour candidate and a Conservative candidate, and some other candidate comes along. By taking a certain number of votes from one side or the other he can actively affect the result of that election.
2.0 p.m.
If one desired therefore to institute logrolling at a local government election I should think the best possible way to promote candidates was to ensure three-cornered contests, in which votes could be attracted from one or the other candidate. The present system of first past the post seems to me to be the one most likely to lead to log-rolling and wangling if people wished to do that. Proportional Representation with the single transferable vote means that one can vote for the candidate of one's choice, and one's vote will only be transferred to some other candidate when it is perfectly clear that the candidate of one's choice has either got in or could not possibly get in. I am quite convinced that the system of voting in which wangling and log-rolling are least possible is this system which we are asking should be made available for such local authorities as desire it.
I think that those who have put up what they consider to be arguments against this scheme now have an opportunity of showing whether they really believe in the validity of their arguments. I am content to put the matter to the test. If the opponents of Proportional Representation think their case is so strong, then let this new Clause be passed, let local authorities try it; if their arguments are so strong the facts will very soon prove that the scheme will not work, and the matter will be settled for once and for all. If, on the other hand, their ob-

jection to Proportional Representation comes from some belief that it will adversely affect the fortunes of their own party, and really they are not quite so sure of their arguments, they will resist this new Clause because they do not want to see their arguments disproved.

Sir William Beveridge: I should like an opportunity of doing more than giving a silent vote in favour of this new Clause, particularly having regard to the arguments against the Clause given by the right hon. Lady. I have only three points to make. The first comes from her opening argument that the object of elections is a good Government. I think we should realise in this country that a Government without an Opposition is not a good Government, and that having an effective opposition to criticise in any assembly of Britain, is an essential part of good government. When you have a system which in many local areas gives a 100 per cent. one-party council, that is a bad system, and it requires altering. One does not have to prove that by altering it, you will get to paradise; you will at any rate get away from the kind of purgatory that exists. I suggest that the right hon. Lady's first argument is a conclusive reason for making a change of this character, to get rid of the serious evil of local government areas where you get a one-party government, which is not British and is not good government.
The second reason why I should like to support this proposed new Clause is to increase the power of the voter, and therefore to increase his interest in elections. I will not say anything more about the arguments that the voter cannot understand the transferable vote, except to say that arguments of that sort, which reflect on the intelligence of the voter, really in fact only reflect on the intelligence of the people who use them. Everybody knows that the voters can place their preference, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. I suggest that the fact that they could have the chance of doing so, would make them more interested in elections than they are at present, when they know that the chances are that anything they do will be thrown away.
The third argument I want to give in favour of this new Clause is that I believe the adoption of the transferable vote will also help to improve the quality of the


candidates, because each party, in making up its list of candidates, if it knows that for success it may have to count not only on its regular voters, but on voters transferred from one of the other parties, will have a reason for putting up people on personal grounds, apart from party grounds, who will get additional voters. That is an argument which applies more widely than does this Clause. These are the three arguments I want to give in supporting this new Clause. I would appeal to the hon. Member who gave all the arguments in favour of this Clause and then said he was not going to vote for it, to reconsider his decision. If the Clause had been made compulsory and applied to everybody, then it would have validated one of the arguments used by the right hon. Lady. It would in fact have been her only valid argument. I refer to her argument that if this were made compulsory local government elections could not be held in 1945. As it is not being made compulsory it can be introduced at any time when a local authority has decided on it, but it need not apply in 1945. It will give the authorities time to think the matter over, and decide whether they will adopt it or not.
I suggest that the idea that there would be any confusion in having one system in one local authority area and another system in another area is really no argument at all. After all, areas are separate. A man will only vote in one area, for one local authority. The fact that Dunfermline has one system and Berwick-upon-Tweed another, will not cause any confusion to the highly intelligent electors either of Dunfermline or Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am sorry that the Government propose to resist this Clause. I hope those who support it will press it to a Division, so that we can see who those people are who are prepared to bring about this really important improvement in our electoral system.

Miss Rathbone: I had not intended to speak, and if I do so now very briefly, it is only because an argument I want to use has not yet been brought forward by any speaker. It is perhaps very unlikely to be put forward by any speaker who is not, as I am, completely independent politically, and who is not a strong protagonist or antagonist of Proportional Representation. I have been and am still a protagonist of Proportional Representa-

tion in general, but I have had doubts in recent years as to the applicability of Proportional Representation to Parliamentary elections for reasons which I will go into in a moment. I think there are few subjects which have been before the country for many years, and have been carefully studied and hotly debated over and over again, about which there is such a complete cutting-across of parties and cutting-across of levels of ability, as the question of Proportional Representation. I remember once drawing up a list of those able people who had studied the subject in the past and favoured Proportional Representation, and those who were against it. They were extraordinarily equal. Many of our best speakers and thoughtful statesmen were for Proportional Representation, more of them perhaps, but very many were against. Surely the point is that we have a really difficult question here where there is much to be said on both sides.
What ought to be done? Put it to the test. By trying the experiment here Proportional Representation can be tried out in the sphere of government where, by general admission, the objections, such as they are, least apply. What are those objections? I will not give them in detail, but one is that Proportional Representation, on the whole, needs large constituencies, too large for one member to cover adequately. That does not apply to local government. The other is that we want so badly in these difficult times a very strong Government, and that Proportional Representation might lead to splitting Parliament into small groups. There, again, that applies infinitely less to local government. I was a member for, I think, 15 years, of the Liverpool city council. One was always struck by the fact that the principle on questions of policy which separated the parties mattered so little, party labels were extremely unofficial; what mattered was the experience, the expertise, of members in health, education, housing, and finance business that was coming before the city council. Therefore, I think there is an overwhelming case for this proposed new Clause.
If the Government turn down this new Clause, they do so for a reason about which they have reason to take warning. Why is it that though Proportional Representation has been so powerfully supported by able people for the past 30


or 40 years it has not been tried? It is because when it came to the point the party which was in power, or which expected to get into power at the next General Election, always thought it might lose more than it gained by introducing Proportional Representation. So it was with the Liberal Party. When they had the chance in 1918 they refused it. Actually they had a very strong element of power in 1924. They were beginning to think, "Well, perhaps after all it would be a pity to try it." They thought the Liberal Party would be able to do without it, that the party was on the upward move. I warn the party which, is in the majority at present that the time may come, as it came to the Liberal Party, when they will bitterly regret not having secured at least an instalment, this little modest instalment, which enables this system to be tried out. It may lead in the future, if the system were successful here, to that party getting representation which they may very badly need in order to be able to attain their legitimate interests and express their point of view on greater issues than local government.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I would like to give one or two reasons why I feel this Clause should be supported. The strongest reason for supporting it is the speech of the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I am very glad to see, has recovered and is back in our midst. I cannot help feeling that neither her heart nor her head was in the argument. She seemed to be either reading from a rather uninteresting brief, or else failing to answer the questions put by hon. Members on this side of the House. One good reason for supporting this proposed Clause is because of the state of local government in this country at the present time. Unless something is done to recover interest in local government, it is my belief that we are in for a very bad time during the next decade. We are throwing on to local government very great responsibilities.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Guy: When the hon. Member says, "We are in for a very bad time," whom does he mean?

Mr. Lindsay: I am speaking of the whole country; I am not interested in the purely party side of this at all. I happen,

like the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) to be Independent, and I can speak with freedom on this matter. I would reiterate the hon. Lady's warning that there is a somewhat cynical attitude towards this question, which has in the past been supported by many distinguished men of all parties. The Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) made a very interesting reference to football pools. Mr. Tom Harrisson, when doing a survey in a certain Lancashire town, set out the various functions of local government in the form of a football pool coupon, at the time of a local government election, and this had the effect of sending up the voting by a considerable percentage, simply because the people were familiar with that way of arranging names.
I think that the argument that the right hon. Lady used about the people not understanding this method is a complete insult to the British electorate. This method of numbering is widely used in connection with sports. As I have taken part in some of those sports, particularly Association football, I know something about the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), after making a most persuasive speech in favour of this Clause, said that its optional nature would complicate matters; but are we to have everything in this country regimented? Why should we not have local differences? Another argument has been that this was not the right time. I think that that has already been answered. This would merely make it possible for any local authority to introduce this system when it wished. In some parts of the country less than 20 per cent. of the people and in one case less than 10 per cent. go to the poll at all.
My hon. Friend has mentioned education. What is the problem in regard to education, so far as local authorities are concerned? It is that you cannot get people, especially in Scotland, with the requisite knowledge, to sit on local authorities or on to the governing bodies of schools. Ask anybody in London about the position there. Now, in Scotland, under the new Bill which is foreshadowed, we are not even to have powers of co-option. I would prefer this system by which it would be possible, as the hon. Member for the Combined Universities has said, to get people with


expect knowledge to come in. There are many men in the Forces and men who have given their services in Civil Defence, the Home Guard, and other forms of national service, who want to go on to local authorities, but who do not belong to any of the well-formed political parties. This Clause would help them to stand for local authorities.
The argument has always been made that in Parliamentary government we must have strong central drive and that if there are two parties you are more likely to see a definite policy pursued by one of them. The argument continues that, under Proportional Representation, you would get a large number of small parties, and weakness in government. This does not apply to local government. Local authorities do not want a strong central party drive. They want people with expert knowledge, to sit on committees and so on, and people with great local knowledge, who are not necessarily identified with national politics. I was very surprised at the speech of the right hon. Lady. I thought it was the weakest speech I ever heard in an attempt to defend this case. Unless we can get very much more powerful arguments from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I shall certainly feel forced to vote for the Clause.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): My hon. Friend has certainly put a formidable task in front of me by his concluding words, but I shall try to deal with it on the basis that a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), have obviously been greatly moved by the general principles which they believe underlie the application of Proportional Representation, and their intense belief in them. I appreciate that, but I ask all hon. and right hon. Members to consider this point. The general question of Proportional Representation in the Parliamentary field was not only considered at the Speaker's Conference, where it was defeated by 25 votes to four, but it was also considered by this House on the Second Reading of the Redistribution of Seats Bill, when the Amendment was rejected by a large majority.
The real issue to which we have to address our minds to-day—here I hope I take everyone with me—is not the general question, but whether there is sufficient

differentiation between conditions in local government and those in Parliamentary government to justify a new approach to the problem. The main distinction which has to be made by those hon. and right hon. Members who have pursued that line has been that there is not the same acute party distinction in local government matters, and, therefore, not the need for a decisive majority which is usually put as one of the arguments against Proportional Representation in the Parliamentary sphere. I should remind my hon. Friends that there is an ever-increasing area of local government into which party politics is coming more and more strongly. It is not material to-day to say whether that is a good thing or not, because one cannot turn back the clock which was wound so strongly after the last war.

Mr. Lindsay: Would my hon. and learned Friend indicate which area in local government he is referring to which he says is becoming more and more organised on party lines?

The Solicitor-General: I was referring to geographical areas. There are a number of them: I could give two in particular.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the Solicitor-General had better do so now.

The Solicitor-General: I shall not, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, pursue the matter further. Apart altogether from that argument, I have listened with the greatest care to all that was said, especially, if I may pick them out, by the right hon. Baronet, by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Sir G. Mander), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge), on the point that you are going to get better candidates by this method, and that those candidates are going to have a better chance of getting in, under Proportional Representation. On the first of those points, I am still entirely unconvinced, and I assure my hon. Friends that I have tried to approach their argument with as clear a mind as I could. I rather deprecate the suggestion that party loyalty and party work are something derogatory in the equipment of the politician, be he national or local.
In my view, the main requirements are, first, a burning interest in politics, and, second, an ability to work, if necessary,


for 18 hours a day. I do not think that there exists this large non-politically-minded class on whom we can draw, who are prevented from coming to the assistance of benighted public life because they do not like party politics. The second point, which is more important, is; supposing that they do come, are their chances going to be improved? Again, I have put it to myself—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) might not be very hopeful of the answer I should get from myself but I tried to put the question—what is the increase in their chances of being elected? Is it likely that in these local councils, with the pronounced trend that we have seen, somebody of the other party is going to get in on the sort of Proportional Representation in local government that we have seen? I should have thought, taking the extreme examples which have been postulated by my hon. Friends, that the change would be extremely small. I can think of very few cases where it would be effective at all.

Mr. Pritt: Certainly I have great confidence in my hon. and learned Friend's capacity to give himself an answer, and I think he can give an answer to a great many other people. But could he not give consideration, not merely to the point that Proportional Representation might give us many people that we should not otherwise get, but to the point that it would give fairer representation for the various parties?

The Solicitor-General: I certainly shall deal with that. I think that that is married to my next point. I do not want to burke the issue, and if I do not deal with it perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will interrupt me again. The point I was going to deal with was the arrangements that would have to be made in order that this system should be carried out. It could not be proportional in any real sense—in the sense which my hon. and learned Friend has put to me by his interruption—unless the constituencies for local government returned at least three members, and it would be less likely to be proportional unless the constituency returned five or seven. There is the dilemma which I see with regard to this proposal for local government. In order to get the truly proportional relationship which my hon.

Friend wants, you would have to have these bigger constituencies.
2.30 p.m.
Let me take the minimum which I have put—that is, a three-member constituency. It would either require, on the one hand, what is suggested as being possible, that is, working on a permissive basis, the abolition of the retirement by annual thirds, or it would require redrawing the ward boundaries and making much bigger wards. Let me deal with this, because I think it is an arguable point which my hon. Friends will consider. In the first of these proposals, to abolish the principle of annual thirds, it would be abolishing a great deal of the continuity and co-operation in local government work which has provided a great part of its success. I dealt with that point on the Committee stage and I do not want to repeat my arguments now. On the second point, that there were to be these bigger constituencies, and I am taking the minimum so as to put the case properly against myself, there would be, roughly, instead of a local ward, something approaching the size of a Parliamentary division. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I represent three wards of the Liverpool City Council in my division. If there are to be these bigger wards, and if three people are retiring at once, the three councillors who are elected will represent something like the area of my division. I do not think that would get the relationship we want or the individual attention. We have to give great individual attention ourselves, and to provide opportunities for seeing our constituents, but, of course, our position is nothing like as intimate as that of the city councillor, who has his people on his doorstep every other day. Many hon. Friends of mine, who have been city councillors, are familiar with that position.

Mr. Messer: I have them day and night.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure we all recognise the peculiar qualities which bring that special position to my hon. Friend. I think there is a serious question about the intimate connection of local government. I only mention, in passing, the difficulty that we would have with regard to the Boundary Commission which would have to deal with the matter, and the additional work which it would make. I think it was the hon. Member for


Berwick-upon-Tweed who said that we should never have the same person troubled with different systems of voting. If there is somebody who elects a parish council and a district council, I should have thought that would be a point and the difficulty would arise. Is it a difficulty? My hon. Friends who oppose this say that it is not. I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) said on this point, and he knows as well as any of us the difficulties of getting information with regard to what people thought of an experiment that took place from 1918 to 1929. With regard to the Scottish Education Committee experiment, the information that we have was, as my right hon. Friend said, that, with one exception, all the authorities consulted were opposed to the continuance of Proportional Representation, that the electors found it difficult to understand—not so much the mere question of putting down the figures, but what effect it had in the working out of the system. In fact, it was summed up very well in the words in which it was passed on to me—"The public could not be bothered about it."
That being the reproach, the other striking feature, as the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said, was that it did not bring about, after 11 years of trial, any of the changes which we have heard proclaimed so eloquently to-day. There was no appreciably greater representation of minority groups, no minority groups, as such, were brought into existence, and, generally, the feeling was—and I yield to no one in my admiration for the intellectual qualities of my own countrymen—that there was no result for a great deal of bother.

Sir G. Mander: This new Clause applies to England, not to Scotland.

The Solicitor-General: I have not worked out the sinister implications of the differences between England and Scotland which my hon. Friend would read into that, but I am giving the results of an

experiment which is considerably nearer than some of the examples which my hon. Friend gave in dealing with this matter. I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but I felt that what has been said did demand my best attempts to answer the points raised, and I ask hon. Members to remember the difficulties which I have mentioned with regard to local government, and our desire to get local government functioning as early as possible in this special position, and to ask them not to press the new Clause, having so clearly and forcibly ventilated their point of view.

Sir G. Mander: May I put this to the Solicitor-General? We have had a long Debate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is doing. If he is withdrawing, it is all right, but he cannot make another speech.

Sir G. Mander: Before I come to a decision whether to withdraw or not, I want to put a question to the Solicitor-General. In view of the fact that a prolonged Debate has taken place and that nearly all the speeches have been on one side, will the Solicitor-General, in the absence of the Home Secretary, take the matter up with his colleagues to see whether, in another place, something on these lines cannot be done?

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry, but I am not going to ride out on something which, I am sure, would not have the result which my hon. Friend wants in this Bill. What I can promise him is that the Home Secretary will consider with the greatest care the arguments advanced. With regard to this Bill, my hon. Friend will bear in mind what I said about our anxiety to get these local elections functioning at the present time, but I really could not hold out any hopes.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 208.

Division No. 5]
AYES.
[2.41 p.m.


Beveridge, Sir W. H.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Procter, Major H. A.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leslie, J. R.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Gallacher, W.
Lindsay, K. M.



Gruffydd, Professor, W. J.
Lipson, D. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Mander, Sir G. le M.
Mr. Edmund Harvey and


Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Reakes.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. Sir G.
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff E.)
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'cham)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Guy, W. H.
Ross Taylor, W.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Albery, Sir Irving
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Salt, E. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hammersley, S. S.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selkirk)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Mrs. Agnes
Shephard, S.


Barnes, A. J.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Beattie, F. (Cathoart)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.


Beaumont, Maj. Hon. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sidney, Captain W. P.


Beechman, N. A.
Heneage, Lt.- Col. Sir A. P.
Silkin, L.


Berry, Hon. G. L (Buckingham)
Hewlett, T. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Higgs, W. F.
Smith, Sir Bracewell (Dulwich)


Blair, Sir R.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hopkinson, A.
Snadden, W. McN.


Bossom, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife E.)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Storey, S.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hynd, J. B.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Jenkins A. (Pontypool)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
John, W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)


Bull, B. B.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.
Suirdale, Colonel Viscount


Burden, T. W.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Summers, G. S.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Sutcliffe, H.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Chater, D.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Leach, W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)


Christie, J. A.
Levy, T.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Clarke, Colonel R. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cluse, W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.
Thorneycroft H. (Clayton)


Colegate, W. A.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Tinker, J. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Loftus, P. C.
Tomlinson, G.


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Touche, G. C.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Turton, R. H.


Craven-Ellis, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Mack, J. D.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Maclay, Hon. John S. (Montrose)
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Denville, Alfred
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Magnay, T.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Maitland, Sir A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, H.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Cot. J.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)


Dunglass, Lord
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Eccles, D. M.
Messer, F.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, H. (Derby, N. E.)


Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Mott-Radclyffe, Major C. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Fermoy, Lord
Nall, Sir J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Findlay, Sir E.
Neven Spence, Major B. H. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Foster, W.
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Willoughby, de Eresby, Major Lord


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Petherick, M.
Windsor, W.


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lt. Col. G.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Wise, Lieut.-Col. A. R.


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Woodburn, A.


Glanville, J. E.
Prescott, Captain W. R. S.
York, Major C.


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Prior, Comdr. R. M.
Young, Major A. S. L. (Partick)


Goldie, N. B.
Pym, L. R.



Graham, Captain A. C.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Mr. Carey and Mr. Buchan—




Hepburn.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Registers which are to be in force for local government and Parliamentary elections.)

2.45 p m.

Amendment made: In page 13, line 4, after "elections," insert "on or."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 14.—(May 1945 register.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 14, line 39, after "March," insert:
shall not be invalid by reason only of being made before the commencement of this Act.


This is an Amendment put down to implement an undertaking given on the Committee stage that we would make clear that claims can be made on and after 1st February even although the Bill has not then become law.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 14, line 41, after "declaration," insert:
or by other persons on behalf of members of the Forces and seamen.
This is consequential on the new Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Business premises application by Service voters.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 18, line 13, at end, insert:
but, if the form requires him to give the address at which he is, or but for his service as a member of the Forces or a seaman would be, residing, he shall give instead the address of the business premises as given in his application under this Section to be registered in the business premises register.
Application for the appointment or cancellation of a proxy by a Service voter applying to the business premises register has to be made on the ordinary Service form applicable to the appointment of a proxy in respect of the service register. The proxy appointment may be made subsequent to the application for registration, and accordingly this Amendment requires that the address of the business premises on which the application is based shall be substituted on the form for the address where the Service voter resides.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 30, leave out, "on the qualifying date," and insert "at the time of his application."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 18, line 39, at end, insert:
(7) In the application of this Section to persons disqualified as peers from registration as parliamentary electors—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) shall not apply; and
(b) Sub-sections (2) and (3) shall have effect subject to any modifications prescribed by electoral registration regulations made under the following provisions of this Act for conferring on those persons rights as to the appointment of a proxy to vote at local government elections."


This Amendment is necessary to provide for the position which arises from Peers being disqualified from voting at Parliamentary elections, and I do not think I need say any more to inform the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Adjustment of statutory time limits in connection with parliamentary elections.)

Amendment made: In page 20, line 35, after "this," insert "Part of this."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Postal voting by service voters at parliamentary elections other than university elections.)

Amendments made:

In page 22, line 8, leave out "a member of the forces, seaman or other," and insert "that."

In page 22, line 9, after "residence", insert "or on that person's behalf by some other person."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 30.—(Proxy voting by service voters at local government elections.)

Amendments made:

In page 28, line 11, leave out "a member of the forces, seaman or other," and insert "that."

In page 28, line 13, after "residence," insert "or on that person's behalf by some other person."—[The Lord Advocate.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Registration as Local Government Elector.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 40, line 15, at end, add:
and
(ii) for sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 the following sub-paragraph shall be sub-stituted—
(2) For the purpose of registration in the ratepayers register the references in the provision substituted by Section forty-three of the Act of 1918 for Section three thereof to the qualifying period shall be construed as references to the period of two months ending with the said qualifying date, and Sub-section (2) of Section seven of the said Act shall not apply for the purposes of the aforesaid provision as modified by this sub-paragraph.
Provided that, if on the said qualifying date Section one of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944, is in force, the aforesaid provision shall have effect as if for the words 'last day of the qualifying


period' there were substituted the words 'qualifying date' and as if the words 'and has been during the whole of that period' were omitted.
This is a drafting Amendment to apply the provisions of the Schedule better to the Scottish law provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

2.56 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think that I can allow the Third Reading of this Measure to pass away from us without saying a few words relating to it, and they shall be very few, because I understand it is desired to proceed to other Business before the House rises this afternoon. My first words, Mr. Speaker, will be of thanks to you for presiding so ably at our Conference in the first half of last year. I feel that I am only expressing the view of all those who took part in that Conference that your judgment, tact and conciliatory methods were mainly instrumental in enabling us to reach conclusions which the Government have seen fit to embody, partly in the Bill which has already become an Act, partly in the Bill which is passing through its final stage here to-day, and partly, I should hope, in other proposals which the Government will, no doubt, introduce to implement what is still left of your Conference Resolutions. I would also like to express my thanks to the Home Secretary and the Government generally for so wisely adopting, and so admirably putting into Statute form, the recommendations which we arrived at under your guidance.
Prior to this Speaker's Conference there were two Speaker's Conferences within my memory. The first was that which took place during the last war, the outstanding feature of which was the enfranchisement of a certain proportion of the women of the country. There is nothing in the present Bill which is quite comparable with that very great change. Probably the largest item in what we are doing to-day is the assimilation of the local government with the Parliamentary franchise, but I cannot imagine that that would have the spectacular recognition of the more revolutionary change of this earlier Conference. Subsequently, there was a further Speaker's Conference, somewhere about

the year 1930, and that was wholly abortive, because Members who took one view stood exactly where they had been before and Members who took the other view stood exactly where they were before, with the result that no conclusion was reached at all.
I am glad, therefore, that you, Sir, yourself and most of us who took part determined to model our conduct upon the Conference of the earlier time during the last war, when positive results were attained, rather than going back to the intermediate Conference which produced no results whatever. It is as a result of that that these recommendations were made, some of which the Government adopted in the previous Act and some of which they are adopting to-day.
I was intending to say a few words to my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches and of the universities, but I am afraid they will not have oral cognition of what I am saying. Perhaps I may hope that some of them will read my modest remarks with regard to them or perhaps, for greater accuracy, they will obtain a copy. I was going to say to them that I have a certain amount of regret that I could not acclaim their white-headed boy of Proportional Representation of whom, in later years, they have become such enthusiastic supporters. I have never believed that Proportional Representation would attain—

Mr. Speaker: Proportional Representation is not now in the Bill, and we ought not to discuss it.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I recognise that, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that I prefer the Bill in the form in which it is coming before us on Third Reading to any changes which some of my Liberal friends would desire to see in it. On the other point to which they have taken exception, there is a feature of it in the Bill and, therefore, I think I should be in Order in referring to it—the plural vote.
I am in agreement, in principle, with my Liberal friends on that point, but the resolution of your Conference, Mr. Speaker, which is embodied in this Bill, is for a compromise on the matter—the same kind of compromise which Members of the Liberal Party made in the last war—that is to say, without abolishing plural voting altogether, they cut it down from


being indiscriminate, from triple, quadruple, quintuple and multi-plural voting, which it was in accordance with the proposals of that time, to the exercise of not more than two votes, and we have adopted a somewhat similar plan now which is embodied in the Bill and, naturally, those of us who took part in producing the compromise stood by our bargain when the time came.
The next feature of the Bill which calls for some remark is the creation of the annual register and the May register. I was very glad that the Government introduced the principle of the annual register, because it has done away with the long delay and complicated procedure of the 1943 Act for the most usual time for an election somewhere in the latish Autumn. With regard to the May register, I think that, too, is a very good thing, although I am afraid it is rather a case of the "may be" register, because when it was first adumbrated there was a more optimistic view about the termination of the war than perhaps the more sober judgment we have to-day. However, we live in hope that it may be, after all, that the May register will be called into requisition.
Now a word about the postal vote of the soldier. It will be remembered that that was a point on which we paid some attention in the Speaker's Conference, and it is embodied in the Report. I am very glad to find that the Government, after considering the matter and appointing a special committee to go into it, came to the conclusion that they could accept the proposal and embodied it in the Bill. We are so often told of the procrastination of committees and Governments that I think that the celerity with which the committee reported, and the celerity with which the Government adopted and inserted it in the Bill, are certainly worthy of very high praise.
There is only one thing more I want to say and I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to put the question very briefly and to get an answer. In your Conference, Mr. Speaker, we carried a very large number of resolutions regarding a number of different questions. Some of them were embodied in the Bill which has already become an Act, and most of the remaining ones are embodied in the present Bill. There only remain the recommendations which the Government have not yet put into statutory form. I will

not enumerate those because it would be going beyond your wishes, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Government what their proposals are with regard to the extension of university franchise to cover, without fees, all graduates, and the registration and conduct of elections generally. I would like to ask the Government what they are already doing and whether they are going to bring in another Bill embodying such recommendations. With those brief words I commend and support the Third Reading of this Bill.

3.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: There is just one question I wish to put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate before the Debate is wound up. Clause 20 of the Bill deals with electoral registration regulations. Will he see that provision is made under these regulations, or, alternatively, in view of the urgency of the matter, will he give instructions to the registration officers to make available forthwith to accredited agents or secretaries of political parties, supplies of the forms necessary for making application for the business vote, so that they may be distributed by the agents or secretaries if they so desire? My reason for making this request is that I fear there will be considerable difficulty in gathering all the necessary applications from the potential business voters within the very limited space of one month. Furthermore, if this process of voluntary distribution were adopted, it would cut out a good deal of unnecessary correspondence which would occur if each individual voter had to write to the registration officer and ask for a form. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be kind enough to answer my question.

3.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Perhaps I might reply to that matter, as it affects Scotland only. I have no definite information, as the point is a new one to me, but I can certainly give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance, subject to the forms being available—and if they are not available to-day, they will be in a few days' time—that they will be distributed in the ordinary way to those who deal with the matter, and that there will be no hold-up on the basis that forms cannot be distributed until the Act has been passed.

3.9 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said there had been a lack of interest shown in the Bill in this House. One can understand that. It is partly an agreed Measure of the Speaker's Conference and, naturally, there is not the same keenness shown in debate when we know that all parties are pledged in advance, but I do want to emphasise one or two points dealt with in the early part of the Bill. I want to find out, if possible, whether the Home Secretary has given any instructions as to the promise he made. When we dealt with the question of local government elections we tried to get them brought forward so that they could be held in better weather. The Home Secretary, in his reply, stated that in a Bill of this kind it would be difficult to alter it, but there would be a chance later on of something being done and, on this particular point, he would consider setting up a committee. Unfortunately the Home Secretary is unwell. We are all sorry about that, because he would like, I am sure, to be here and to see the culmination of his Bill. However, nature has intervened and prevented him from being here. I wonder if he has left any instructions on the matter being considered at some future time.
My next point deals with aldermen. This is a more difficult matter. I tried to get the removal of aldermen from the Bill, because I think they are obsolete, although different points of view arose in the House on this matter. I have been trying to discover what aldermen really do mean, how they arose, and how the practice grew up, and I will read what I found out:
Aldermen have existed from the dawn of Anglo-Saxon history and were once commanders of armies and governors of provinces. Their decline began as far back as the eleventh century, when the equivalent of a modern earl superseded the alderman, and they might have disappeared altogether when municipal corporations were being reformed in the 1830's. However, a compromise 'preserved the title of alderman and, what was more important, introduced the device by which the elected councillors' could elect aldermen 'having the same position in the council as those who had been elected, thus serving for a double term.'
So we are carrying forward ancient history.
The privileges of aldermen have been summed up as including gowns of richer quality and hue than those of ordinary coun-

cillors and the reservation of special seats in the parish church. There is also the more doubtful privilege of being much more often the target for satire than ordinary councillors.
That is from the "Manchester Guardian" of 27th December, 1944. I was expecting that in the examination of a Bill of this kind this matter might have received better treatment than it has, because we seem to carry forward step by step the old traditions, and we seem to be governed by what has happened in the past. The Home Secretary made a clever reply, as he can on any subject. Sometimes he seems to me like a lawyer who can state a case for both sides. I think we ought to raise this point again and I cannot allow a Bill containing something of this kind to pass Third Reading without making a strong protest and saying that on the very next opportunity this will be challenged and fought to a Division. I am not using that threat to-day on this Bill, because I realise that many of my friends are compromised on this matter—they insisted at the Speaker's Conference on certain things which they thought belonged to them, and they have had to give way on other things. I do not know whether they examined the question of aldermen in the same light as I have, but I do not think it would have been defended very ably by anybody had it been discussed in the Speaker's Conference. That is all I have to say. I thought we might have some further reply just to show that the next time this is examined aldermen will have to go.

3.14 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: On the Third Reading of this Bill I would say that I am deeply impressed by the Bill as a whole but, at the same time, I made some remarks on the Second Reading on the subject of aldermen and I feel it is justifiable again to place on record the doubts that are in some of our minds in regard to continuing such a system. We have incorporated in this Bill the continuation of the aldermanic system, and I foretell that the time will come in the fairly near future when this House will make a drastic change and we shall then see the benches, of which I am at the moment pretty nearly the sole occupant, crammed with Members of Parliament arguing in one way or another. I am not quite sure what my party will do, but what I am quite certain of is this, that 90 per cent. of the Members of this


House cannot justify the aldermanic system. The arguments in favour of it have been put with considerable lucidity by the Home Secretary but, however lucid they were, they were to me entirely unconvincing. I noticed that the Home Secretary remarked the other day, in reply to a supplementary question in connection with the representation of the people:
I should have thought that local authorities were all elected with an equal degree of democracy." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 365.]
Nothing can be farther from the truth. To say that the system of electing county councils and borough councils and county borough councils is equally democratic with the system which prevails with urban districts and rural district councils is just not a fact, and I am astonished that the Home Secretary could bring himself to say such a thing.
I do not wish to weary the House by pursuing this subject; I merely wish to place it on record that it is an undemocratic system and one which will have to be changed, and I will try to sum up how it strikes me in a short sentence. It seems to me that by passing this Bill and perpetuating this system we fail to put our trust in the local electors, whom we have placed on the register, by saying to them, "We do not consider that you are capable of judging properly as to who shall represent you on the councils of your local authority. At any rate we will permit you to elect a certain number of them but, as for one quarter of them, namely 25 per cent. of those councillors, we do not trust you to elect them." I can only say that as a local elector that is something which I am not prepared to swallow.
The other effect that the Bill will have in the perpetuation of this system, is this: It is said that the idea of the aldermanic system makes for stability and continuity of policy. If that is the argument, all I can say is that in addition to failing to put our trust in the local electors we fail to put our trust in the permanent officials, than whom there is no more excellent body of people in the country. The clerks and their assistants, and all the other employees of the great borough councils and the county borough and the county councils are an admirable body of men, thoroughly well aware of what is necessary for continuity of policy and stability, and for the good of their county or their

county borough as the case may be. We, in effect, say that because of the slight difficulties which might occur by having normal elections, such as are necessary for representation in this House, "We do not trust you and we do not think that your capacity for stability and permanent policy is sufficient." I think we are quite wrong in putting that stigma upon the permanent authorities of the councils and county borough councils. I am rather proud to place on record my protest against the perpetuation of this bad system.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: As one of the few members of your Conference in this House to-day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two of thanks—for that is all that is necessary—if it is not too belated to do so, for your Chairmanship of that Conference, which has been so ably referred to by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). However, that is not the main purpose of my rising on the Third Reading of this Bill. I think that the last speaker did "protest too much." We knew quite well what we were doing at the Speaker's Conference when we said we thought that the aldermanic bench should not be disturbed. What is wrong with that? Why should my hon. and gallant Friend, as a so-called democrat, stand up so vehemently for permanent officials? Why should he go out of his way to talk in favour of bureaucracy against the properly elected members of councils? Aldermen and councillors determine the policy of their authority, a matter which we must jealously guard.
There are no better clerks and other officials than those of a council in my constituency in which I take a great interest, but I will not for one moment bow the knee to them; I stand for the rights of democracy, namely, that the elected people alone shall determine the policy of the public body of which they are members. We stand for continuity of the elder men, the older men, for that is what "aldermen" means in plain language, for men with experience who have spent years as members of their council or other authority. There are some Members here to-day who look like aldermen, and they are none the worse for that. We benefit by the experience of these men. We know that aldermen are specially fittted for their


job. Councillors are not fools in choosing aldermen to be in office for five years instead of three. I cannot understand why there should be this jealousy of these preferred men, who are doing such excellent work. We in the Speaker's Conference made all sorts of compromises, but there was no compromise about this and if various Members here want a fight on this question they can have it at any time, because experience has shown that aldermen are fit and proper persons to do the job they are chosen for by their colleagues.

3.23 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: May I first thank my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken, for their general welcome of this Bill and for its completion in all stages in this House, and also thank the House as a whole for the assistance which has been given in the course of the passage of this Measure. If I may very briefly deal with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), the answer is that of the outstanding proposals a number have been accepted, but others require further examination and elucidation from a technical point of view in order to see whether they are workable. As soon as the report of that examination is received, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce those that have been accepted in the form of a Bill, and it is desired that that should be done as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised two points. The first was with regard to the time of local government elections. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering that matter and I am sure he will not disappoint my hon. Friend, at any rate in the amount of consideration which he is prepared to give to it. My right hon. Friend realises that there are different opinions held on that point which require examination. I do not think the House will expect me to go into the aldermanic controversy once again. We had a few words about it on the Second Reading, and during the Debate in Committee, in which the Home Secretary expressed his views. All I can do is to take note, once again, of the views that are held so strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and my hon. and gallant Friend

the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), and which have been expressed to-day, and to ask the House to remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) has shown that there is another point of view which is widely held in the different political quarters of the House.
So, I leave that knotty problem and with two other sentences I take leave of the Bill. The first is that we have on many occasions in this House expressed our admiration for the principles of democracy and their value to the human spirit in the world. That valuation demands that we should not shrink from the day-to-day working of democracy, one of whose requirements is finding the best process and the best lines along which it will work. We can say that we have taken some steps, not inconsiderable steps, in that proper direction by this Bill. The other sentence is to make the proceedings on this Bill turn full circle, and to finish as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary began by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for presiding over the labours of the Conference which produced this Bill, and which has met with such general approval.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.28 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I must apologise to Members of the House for inflicting myself so much upon them to-day, but they will regret that not only for the reason that they see me but for the reason which prevents my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from being here. This Bill is one that makes no permanent change in the licensing laws. As its Title indicates, it is designed for temporary reconstruction purposes with regard to the supply of places of refreshment connected with the replanning of our blitzed towns and cities. The objects of the Bill are two—first to replan a number of licensed premises and, second, to co-ordinate the duties of licensing justices and local authorities in this field. The extent of the problem is considerable. Up


to the end of 1943 no fewer than 1,600 public houses had been destroyed or very seriously damaged by enemy action, and that number has increased since then. The damage occurred in some 25 of our greatest towns and cities and the proportion of public houses destroyed varies from some 25 to 50 per cent.
I might be asked what is the need for this Bill when we have passed the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, by which the Minister may declare the land subject to compulsory purchase in war damaged areas or where the land is required for re-location of parts of the population. There are two answers. The first is that public houses are subject to special control by the licensing justices. Of course they are in the difficulty that they cannot compile complete plans for the area. They have to work on individual applications and, even if they were able to work out a plan, they would not be able to bring it into effect because of their absence of the control of land. On the other hand, the local authorities, who have power to deal with the land, may be held up by a difference of view by the licensing justices and unable to proceed with their plans. Sometimes, therefore, you get a deadlock, and it is that deadlock which has to be solved by co-ordination.
It is a comparatively easy problem to state as I have stated it but by no means an easy one to work out, and it was therefore referred to a strong Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. W. Morris, a well-known K.C., with representatives of all types who could be useful in the matter. There were representatives of licensing justices, of local authorities, of the brewers and of the Home Office and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The Committee's report was unanimous, except for a minority report on one recommendation by two members, and the Bill in general gives effect to the report. It does so by setting up special machinery to effect the reduction and redistribution of licences in areas affected by serious war damage, while at the same time it leaves to the licensing justices all their functions which can be exercised without interference with the re-planning of premises, such as transfer, structural alterations and matters of that kind.
The Bill provides for the constitution of licensing planning areas. The Home Secretary may designate areas either of

one licensing district or of two or more contiguous licensing districts containing areas of war damage. The Committee may apply for areas to be added to whch populations may be moved, such as the overspill areas, of which we heard so much in the Debates on the Town and Country Planning Act. The order of the Home Secretary can be made only after consultation with both the local licensing justices and the local authority, and these over-spill areas and the like can only be added at the request of the committee which is to run the scheme. The constitution of the licensing planning committee is that it is to consist of representatives of the licensing justices and of the local authorities in equal numbers, with a chairman appointed by the Home Secretary. The function of the licensing planning committee will be, generally, to review the licensing problem in its area, to evolve a plan for dealing with distribution and the number and location of licensed houses, to formulate proposals for removing houses from one part of the area where they are not needed to another where they are, and to provide for the surrender of certain houses which are not needed. That is not entirely a new experiment. It has often been done, perhaps with a certain amount of complaint from certain persons. There has often been a removal from one site to another, accompanied by the owners of the houses having at the same time to surrender other licences, thereby clearing part of the districts in which the licences were not required.
But there is another factor that one must remember, that war-damaged houses can be removed by the procedure known as special removal. The right to a special removal only arises when the house has been damaged in some way and, when it arises, the licensing justices cannot use their discretion as they can in the case of an ordinary removal. They have to grant a special removal subject to the premises to which it is being removed being fit for the purpose and to there being nothing against the licensee. So that, if no machinery were put forward such as we suggest, there would be nothing in the way of a series of special removals and the licensing justices would have absolutely no discretion to exercise. The proposals of our licensing planning committees will work in this way. They will be able to permit removal from one


set of premises in an area to another, and that removal will supersede the special and ordinary removals existing at present, but when the committee have confirmed their view of the proposed removal, the licensing justices will still have to consider whether the premises are fit and convenient, whether there is anything against the licensee, and whether all the conditions have been fulfilled. On that point the functions of the licensing justices will remain, and there will be an appeal from them as at present.
The other point, apart from putting forward proposals for licensing planning removals, is that the licensing planning committee will have to deal with the extinguishment of licences which are unnecessary, and they will be extinguished after the order is made. Their proposal for removing a house from A to B, perhaps extinguishing another at the same time, has to be approved from the planning aspect, that is the aspect of land use by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. If an objection is made and not withdrawn, the Minister must order a local inquiry to be held before he confirms or refuses the proposals. This safeguards the public right in a matter which has always been thrashed out in public, and it also facilitates the general plan for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Mr. Rhys Davies: How does it come about that the determination by the people who live in the locality is left until a decision has been reached by the committee and it has gone to the Minister? Should not the public be consulted before it reaches that stage?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point because I would like to put the idea to him quite clearly. The licensing planning committee will represent, as to 50 per cent., the local authority, whose members are the representatives of the people. They will examine the matter and decide on the proposals. Before the proposals can come into effect they will have to be confirmed by the Minister. Before they go to the Minister notice is given of them, and if the objections are persisted in a local inquiry is held. So you have, first, the fact that half the licensing planning committee are the elected representatives of the people on the local authority. Then you have the safeguard that if objection

is made a local inquiry will be held. Then you have my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and, lastly, you have the licensing justices on the three points of premises, fitness of the licensee and the question of conditions. I do not think that, taking it all round, one can say that local opinion, which can be formulated, first, by its elected representatives and, second, at the local inquiry, can be ignored and prevented from being expressed.
The House will appreciate that it is possible that new licences might be applied for and the licensing planning committee—this joint body which we set up by the Bill—cannot make proposals for them. It is expected that they will be rare, because the committee will be dealing with the general problem in the area and new licences will be left subject to the licensing justices. Anyone who makes an application, however, will have to get the consent of this new committee before the application is made in order that the planning provisions are not prejudiced. Another point which the Bill deals with in Clause 9 is one to fill up a gap in our present licensing law. You cannot, at the moment, get a removal to temporary premises on the basis that you will go back from the temporary premises to your permanent home. It is obviously necessary in the conditions of bomb damage with which we are dealing that that should be done, and we provide in Clause 9 for temporary premises being granted as a place to which a removal can be made on the basis that you will go back to your permanent home later on. That again has to be done with the approval of the licensing planning committee and the approval of the justices on the points of fitness and the character of the licensee.

Mr. Isaacs: Are these planning committees constituted on the basis of the area of the licensing committee or of the areas of the local authorities? I am on a licensing committee which covers four local authorities, two of which are borough councils, one an urban district council and the other a rural district council. Will there be a separate planning authority with justices and representatives of the local authorities for each of these areas, or will there be a committee for the area of the licensing committee? In the case I have mentioned, will there be four planning authorities or one?

The Solicitor-General: The unit is the licensing district. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Clause 2 (2), which says:
The members of any such committee appointed under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding Sub-section shall be equal in number, but save as aforesaid the number of members of any such committee shall be determined by the Order constituting the area, and, where there is more than one body of licensing justices or more than one local planning authority having jurisdiction in the area, the Order shall specify the number of members that are to be appointed by each body of justices or local planning authority.
The basis is the licensing district. On the question of the financial side of our proposals, the licensing justices, at the moment, cannot refuse renewal of an old licence on the ground of redundancy. It has to be referred to the compensation authority, which will then pay the proper compensation out of the levy which is made under the Licensing Act.

Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs): Does that apply to Scotland?

The Solicitor-General: The Bill does not apply to Scotland because the licensing law is different in Scotland and the bomb damage is not so extensive as in England. Therefore, my hon. Friend need not worry about any particular Scottish problem which he has in mind. If I might return to the point with regard to the financial scheme, which is rather important, I have explained that it is the general rule that the justices cannot refuse to renew an old on-licence but have to refer it to the compensation authority. Under the scheme of this Bill, it is one of the essential points that the licensing planning authority shall eliminate redundant licences by agreement and without cash payment. Therefore, the compensation scheme is not required. In fact, it would be embarrassing if the justices referred a house with which the licensing planning committee is dealing.
The licensing law is a complicated field and it would be simpler if I took an example. Take one of the new licensing planning areas in which there are, say, three houses which are near together in a part of the area which is well served by the number of houses. The licensing planning committee, this administrative body consisting half of justices with their experience and half of members of local authorities, consider the problem. They

think that the thing to do is to move house A to site D, which has a bigger collection of population. It may be that there are new houses there, which are short of licensing facilities. They get down to brass tacks about it. They say that house A is doing five barrels a week, house B two barrels and house C one barrel. They say that in the new housing area you might easily have an eight-barrel house instead of all those others, and thus produce an exceedingly satisfactory result, and nobody would have lost anything. With regard to the conclusion that nobody has lost anything, I can speak with complete assurance, because one can work it out in any way one likes, either by arithmetic, by going into a calculation on hypothetical monopoly values, or simply by taking one's own experience, in which case one will find—

Mr. Reakes: Would there not be a sacrifice of drinking area to achieve that result? That is a very important point.

Mr. Oldfield: Would the new licence be based on population?

The Solicitor-General: It would be based upon a calculation which largely reflected the population. I want to answer the arguments quite accurately. Take our dock areas. There might be an area in which you would not only have your population of the locality, but an influx of mid-day population, which would also have to be taken into account. I am sure hon. Members appreciate that point.
I will now deal with the point about floor space or drinking area. The modern view, with which I entirely agree, is that you must not be hidebound by considerations as to drinking area. If I saw there were three houses of the kind I mentioned, one doing five barrels, another doing two and another only one, and if these were moved to a house which was doing eight, I should very much hope that the house expected to do eight barrels would have a lot more floor space than the combined houses. I like to see drinking going on with plenty of space, good ventilation and good lighting, and not done in dark corners. I appreciate the importance of the point raised by my hon. Friend but it is not one which would weigh with me as being conclusive in the matter.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman forgetting good beer?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is quite right. The other things I have mentioned would be very vain and insubstantial if the good beer were absent. I wanted to bring the matter to actualities and down to brass tacks. That is the way it would move. In that method of dealing with the matter, you do not need the compensation fund, and therefore we say that you will not have your compensation provisions or your levies—because you cannot have one without the other—while this is going on for this temporary period. As I have said, it has been done by various licensing benches in the past, but there has always been the question: Ought a judicial body like licensing justices to bargain about the surrender of licences? What is proposed is not a judicial but an administrative body and we say: "It is your duty to bargain about licences and to re-organise the distribution and number of licences in order to see that the area will be best served."
I would say one word about the special provisions for the Administrative County of London. There is already, of course, a single planning authority, namely the London Council Council. There are 16 licensing districts, but the whole of the Administrative County of London, excepting the City of London, with which I will deal in a moment, will form one licensing planning authority. The suggested figures are 12 members from the London County Council and 12 members from London Quarter Sessions, which is the appeal and compensation authority—I think I am right—for the various licensing districts. There will be an independent chairman appointed by the Home Secretary and special sub-committees to deal with various problems which may be recruited from people who have special knowledge of the problems referred to. This proposal was approved by the London County Council. In fact, it was put forward, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) whom I see opposite me, when he was giving evidence before the Committee. Therefore it is agreed upon, so far as the London County Council is concerned and it fits in, mutalis mutandis, with our general scheme. The City of London is both planning area and licensing district, and

therefore the general scheme of the Bill will apply to the City.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House may have asked themselves: How will the powers of the new licensing planning committees be enforced? Let me summarise it. In the first place, you have the desire of the trade that certain of the houses in certain parts of our blitzed areas should not carry on. It is not much good having a house if the area is completely changed and people have been taken away. Apart from the goodwill, you have that consideration. Of course, if they do not co-operate and accede to the proposal for removal or to the proposals for surrender, the position is that they might apply for a new licence, for which they would have to get the consent of the licensing planning committee, which is in itself a difficult and perilous matter. It requires the payment of monopoly values—a doubtful venture. Even there, they would not be on strong ground. Any other form of changing the place or situation of the licence, that is, either by an ordinary removal or by a special removal, is taken away by the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, the licensing planning committee, in their consent to a removal, have a strong weapon for seeing that the owners of the licences fit in with their plans.
If, in spite of that consideration, the owner of a licence was not prepared to co-operate, the licensing planning committee, which has got half its members from members of the local authority, could consult with them, and through them with the local authority, to see whether it was not a case for acquisition under general powers, in which case the licence would go in that way. Even if they were not prepared to do that, at the end of this temporary period there would be a danger of the licence being referred for redundancy. There is sufficient power and a sufficient sanction in the licensing planning authority to achieve, I hope without compulsion at all, but through the good sense of all parties concerned, a reasonable and sensibly-planned scheme.
There are two minor points. I told the House that this was a temporary Bill. The time is actually a period of five years. I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) why it did not apply to Scotland. I think that the House will appreciate that


the reason why it is not of universal application, even in England, is that we have this special problem of the blitzed areas with which we must deal. We shall gain valuable experience from working it in the blitzed areas, in seeing how this Measure and this plan will operate, for consideration in the future. As I have told the House, it is based on the report of a strong Committee. That report was approved by various bodies in public expressions—the council of the Magistrates' Association and individual licensing committees, and the Brewers' Society has indicated that it is prepared to co-operate in the matter. That, of course, does not release this House from any of its responsibility, though it is a proper and modern constitutional practice to consult with those interested bodies before legislation is introduced.
I venture to commend the Bill to the House as a practical measure of reconstruction. It deals with a problem which is very much in the minds of a great number of our fellow citizens, and gives a method which will produce co-operation between the two bodies—the Justices and the local authority—vitally interested in this matter. It will facilitate the replanning of those areas which is so near to the hearts and minds of us all.

Mr. Reakes: Does the Bill bring within its powers of control licensed premises just outside bombed areas, that have in no way been damaged by enemy action? There are many such cases. Looking at the matter from the town planning point of view, it is vital that the committee which is set up should have control to enable it to deal with those premises, in order to make a more perfect planning scheme.

The Solicitor-General: The answer to my hon. Friend is that the Home Secretary, in constituting a licensing planning area can choose either one licensing district, or two licensing districts, or more than two, which are contiguous, but in constituting the licensing area he cannot say "I will take this licensing district plus 100 yards of the next." It is only by choosing a licensing district in which there may have been this heavy damage, that he can work, but, as I indicated earlier, there can be added to that district any other area to which there will be a movement of population, like an "overspill" area. I would have thought that

with these powers, first to select the licensing district, secondly of taking contiguous ones if necessary, and thirdly, the provision for added districts, one would have more or less covered as well as one could, the very important point which my hon. Friend has raised.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Silken: I am sure the House is under a deep debt of gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend for the very clear way in which he has dealt with a very complicated subject. I can assure him he need not have felt any diffidence in appearing before the House in a number of different roles to-day. We all regret the absence of the Home Secretary, and particularly the reasons which have necessitated his absence, but I am quite sure he has had an excellent deputy.
I very much welcome this Bill, although there are one or two points on which I should like to comment. I think the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on having shown foresight and having appreciated in good time the importance of this problem, and set up a Committee to give consideration to the position which will arise after the war. We ought to thank the Committee for the painstaking report which they have presented. I would be the last to find fault with that report, because, as the Solicitor-General said, I gave evidence before the Committee and to a large extent they have accepted that evidence. I think the conception of a licensing planning committee which consists partly of licensing justices, and partly of members of the local planning authority, is an excellent one for dealing with problems of the location of licences and their numbers. I hope the experiment—because it is largely an experiment—will be watched. It may be found that it ought not to be limited to dealing merely with areas which have suffered extensive war damage, and that there are other areas, as set out in this Report, which are equally in need of redevelopment, and where the same considerations will apply.
I would like to refer to paragraph 73 of the Morris Report, which states that there are problems in redevelopment areas which are not affected by war damage, and which are therefore not within their terms of reference, but experience, they say, may show that the machinery they are now proposing can


have its use in that connection also. They have noted that in the Uthwatt Report no distinction is made between the need for redevelopment for reason of war damage, and for other reasons, a point which the Minister of Town and Country Planning may remember, was made from time to time in connection with the discussion on his Bill. So I hope that this question will be watched. If this is successful it may be found it can be applied to the considerations of reconstruction arising out of the redevelopment of areas of bad layout and obsolete development, as well as other planning areas.
The Solicitor-General referred to the size of the committee in London. I must say I feel rather disturbed at the thought of a committee of 24–12 members of the local authority and 12 licensing justices—and while it is not a matter with which we wish to deal on Second Reading, I feel rather disturbed at the idea of committees of that size. The Home Secretary will have to consider regulations defining the size and functions of these licensing committees. I hope he will not make them unduly large, because they do become unwieldy, and put a great strain on the local authorities, whose members will have very onerous duties to fulfil in the next few years in connection with the extension of all sorts of social services.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the inclusion in an area of a licensing planning area of the area of any licensing district to which either there has been, or there is likely to be, a substantial transfer of population. The Solicitor-General referred to that in an answer to the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). It is true that the area of a licensing planning authority can be added to from time to time, as may be necessary. I want, however, to put a particular case which I think is not altogether satisfactorily met in this Bill. Suppose, for example, it was found desirable to transfer a licence from Bethnal Green to Chingford. It is true that, in the past, a number of persons have been removed from various parts of London to Chingford. Bethnal Green may become de-congested—I do not like the word—and it may be desirable to transfer a licence from Bethnal Green to Chingford. It might then be thought desirable to add the licensing district of Chingford to the London County Council area and make it one licensing body, but

the licensing district of Chingford deals with a much larger population than that of the limited housing estate in Chingford. If the only way of carrying out a removal which is desirable in every respect is by adding this licensing district to the London County Council, it is going to be cumbersome and onerous. But there is no other way of doing it, except possibly by agreement—I want to say a word about agreement later on.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to that sort of problem, because I think it will arise to a considerable extent. I do not visualise large masses of population being moved out of one town into a housing estate somewhere else. People, I imagine, will be dispersed into smallish housing estates at different distances from the areas in which they have been living, and we shall not, as a general rule, get this large movement of population; we shall get, as a rule, some addition to an already existing area. The only question will be whether you will need to transfer a licence from one district to another. To create a large number of additional licensing bodies, merely to deal with that one problem, does not seem the most convenient way.
There is one point in the Bill which requires clarification. Clause 1 refers to areas which have "sustained extensive war damage." That is going to be the criterion upon which the licensing planning areas will be set up. The expression "areas of extensive war damage" is familiar to hon. Members, and it has acquired a very special meaning. It has now become time-honoured. I would like to know whether the meaning in this Bill is the same as that in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, under which an area becomes an area of extensive war damage only after my right hon. Friend has made an Order to that effect. Does Clause 1 mean that, until the Minister of Town and Country Planning has declared an area to be one of extensive war damage, this Clause does not come into operation? I am sure that that is not the intention, but this confusion arises because we are using exactly the same phrase in this Bill and in the Town and Country Planning Act.
It may be necessary, in Committee, to amplify Clause 1, to make it clear that we do not intend to wait until the area has been declared by the Minister of Town


and Country Planning to be one of extensive war damage, and that we are not defining our areas necessarily in exactly the same way. The same thing will apply to overspill areas. My right hon. Friend, in discussing the areas to which licences may be added, referred to them as overspill areas, but they will not necessarily be overspill areas in the sense in which they are defined in the Town and Country Planning Act. Confusion may arise because we are referring to them under the same terms. Population may be moved to a housing estate outside the town without that becoming an overspill area, because the term "overspill area" implies other things besides population.
My right hon. Friend, on the Town and Country Planning Bill, gave a definition of an overspill area which went far beyond the movement of population. That ought to be made clear in connection with this Bill. My right hon. Friend, in discussing compensation and justifying the suspension of compensation for the five years, seemed to assume that what was going to happen was in all cases simply a transfer of population from one place to another. I think he said it was a matter of arithmetic: if you had 1,000,000 people, and 500,000 of them went to different areas round about the town, in the aggregate they would be exactly the same, and their requirements would be the same, and it would be purely a matter of determining where the licences should be moved to. I submit that that is an over-simplification.
I have had considerable experience of rehousing persons who have been displaced by slum clearance schemes. Although, under the Housing Acts, we were required to make provision for the families displaced, only about two-thirds required any accommodation at the moment; the other one-third scattered. They did not remain in London or in the towns in which they had been living. I visualise that in any area which is re-developed, you will not get this population necessarily going to the various housing estates which will be provided by the local authorities or to the other houses. You may find that there will be a substantial reduction in population not only in the town itself, but even in the neighbourhood of the town Therefore, there really may become a case for a reduction, not only in the actual number of licensed premises, but in the capacity required.
Both the report and my hon. and learned Friend cheerfully and optimistically take the view that all this can be settled by agreement. I am not going to say here that the brewers are unreasonable persons. On the contrary, from my own experience of them, and I have had some dealing with them, I think they are at least as reasonable as any other section of the community, but we all look after our own interests first. I cannot see the brewers agreeing to the extinction of a licence, even though the population in the area has gone down, without some quid pro quo. The case my right hon. Friend quoted is, of course, simple. If you have five and two and one, and you transfer them all, you can give a number eight somewhere else, but supposing you have only six to give in another place, and two have got to go, what then? I cannot see any reason why the compensation fund should not be called upon to pay for any redundancy which will arise. It seems to me, and I have read very carefully the report of the Morris Committee on that point and have also listened very attentively to what the Minister said, that there is no justification for not putting that burden where it ought to lie, that is, on the compensation fund.
I imagine that, unless something is done, this burden will, in fact, fall upon the local authorities, and I think it is wrong that the general ratepayers should be called upon to pay compensation for redundancy which has arisen, not through any fault of the local authority, but through people preferring to live somewhere else in the new conditions that will arise after the war. It is doubly unfair, because, in fact, the brewers will get these people somewhere. They will get them in the new places where they are going to live, but, in the meantime, it should be left to the locality from which they are removing to pay compensation. I hope the Minister will see his way to look at this again. I am sure he does not wish to impose an unfair burden on local authorities. They will have quite enough burdens to face which are legitimate burdens; I think this is not a legitimate burden.
Now I come to Sub-section (3) of Clause 5, which contemplates that, whenever objection is made, there is to be a public inquiry. The Bill does not state who is to be entitled to make objection.


It merely says "objection is made," and I take it that a member of the public can make an objection, whether he has an interest or not, and I imagine that some of these objections might conceivably be frivolous and easily disposed of. Yet the Minister will have to hold an inquiry, whether the objection is frivolous or not, whether it is a matter of compensation or for whatever reason it may be. The Minister was sufficiently convinced, in the Debate on the Town and Country Planning Act, to make a concession on this point, because he originally put forward that there ought to be a public inquiry whenever an objection was made, and we, on this side, advocated that the Minister should have discretion. We did not wish to abolish all public inquiries. They sometimes, perhaps frequently, serve useful purposes, but there ought not to be a public inquiry whenever a person makes a frivolous objection.
I ask the Minister to follow the precedent of the Town and Country Planning Act and make the holding of a public inquiry optional. I am quite content to give him discretion. His own excellent example was followed by the Minister of Health shortly afterwards, because, when we had the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Act before us, the Minister was given a discretion not to hold a public inquiry in cases of objection to the compulsory acquisition of land. I should have thought that the case here was quite as strong as in the other two instances that I have mentioned. Moreover, it is quite possible that the case for the objection will already have been dealt with in a previous public inquiry, because the Minister will be holding public inquiries in connection with areas of extensive war damage, and, in that case, will have dealt generally with the area, and it may well turn out that the particular objection relates not so much to a particular licensed house as to the planning of the area as a whole. In that case, the matter will have been covered by a public inquiry and, really, the Minister must have the right to say "I do not think a public inquiry is quite warranted; it will be a waste of public money." In Clause 11, the Minister may make Regulations for settling the procedure of the licensing planning committee. Before the Minister makes the Regulations he should consult the associations of local authorities and

the London County Council. They will be very interested in these Regulations, and I think it only right that they should be consulted.
Clause 13 (3) strikes me as being somewhat obscure. I think the intention is that the town-planning powers of the local authorities shall be applicable to licensed premises. It is not intended to abrogate those powers when dealing with licensed premises, but I only guess that that is what it means. It is not at all clear, and it may mean something else, and, possibly, ingenious counsel may make it mean something else when it comes before the courts. I hope its meaning may be clarified, particularly if I am right in my surmise of what it is supposed to mean. There appears to be one respect in which the powers of local planning authorities will be abrogated. Under Clause 9, the licensing planning committees may give a licence for temporary premises, and, as I understand it, the local authority does not come into it and it would not be necessary to get their consent. But a licence of temporary premises may last quite as long as it is anticipated the temporary houses may last, and that may be a very long time. I think it would be quite wrong that, during that period, the local planning authority should have no voice in the location of these temporary licences, and, there again, I hope it will be possible to ensure that the views of the local authority will not be entirely ignored, but that they will have a right to say something on the allocation of a temporary licence just as on that of a permanent licence.
Those are points I thought it my duty to raise. They do not go to the root of the Bill. I think the Bill, fundamentally, is a sound one, and, perhaps, some of the points I have mentioned can be dealt with at another stage. I conclude by saying that we shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill and do all we can to facilitate the Measure passing into law, but I hope the points I have mentioned will be sympathetically and carefully considered.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I would like to associate myself with the tribute that the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) paid to the ability with which the learned Solicitor-General has introduced this very complicated Measure. There is, however,


one point which goes to the root of the Bill and on which I would like to ask for my hon. and learned Friend's assistance. I am sure he will give it all the more willingly because of his association with the North of England. Clause 1 says:
A licensing district the whole or any part of which has sustained extensive war damage, or consisting of two or more contiguous licensing districts.
I have the honour to represent a constituency which, in the 18th century, was known as the Athens of the North and it is still from many points of view entitled to that great distinction. But with the possible exception of Burton-upon-Trent, it is the biggest brewing constituency in England. I am glad to say that we have not, so far, suffered extensive war damage.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: They cannot find the hon. and learned Gentleman's division for smoke.

Mr. Goldie: We are proud of our smoke and of the labour of the men of Warrington who produce it. May their efforts long continue. The difficulty I feel is that we are situated half-way between Liverpool and Manchester, and, not having the knowledge gained by my, hon. and learned Friend at Oxford, of what the word "contiguous" means, I feel somewhat frightened lest there is any chance of Warrington being regarded as contiguous to Manchester or Liverpool and, therefore, incorporated into one of these severely damaged areas. The point may not seem an accurate one, but if my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, there is a reason for making the matter abundantly clear. If he turns to Clause 3 of the Bill he will find that it states:
The Secretary of State may, on the application of the licensing planning committee for any licensing planning area, … by order include in the area any licensing district (whether contiguous or not) to which, or to any part of which, there has been, or is in his opinion likely to be, a substantial transfer of population, of industry or of other activities from the districts theretofore included in the area.
It so happens that through war activities, our industrial population has gone up by leaps and bounds. Therefore, it might well he that, if we were regarded as a contiguous area, in which it was necessary to have a licensing planning area, the whole of our local licensing provisions, with which we, in Warrington, are satisfied, would be affected by what un-

doubtedly has occurred, namely, the huge transfer of population in South-West Lancashire, and particularly in Warrington. I bring forward the point because I hope my hon. and learned Friend will assist me and re-assure me. It is of considerable importance not only to Warrington, but to the surrounding districts.

4.34 p.m.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) described this Measure as an experiment. I agree with him, and in rising to support it, I support it rather conditionally because it is an experiment. The hon. Member for Peckham raised a number of points which, he said, might have been dealt with on another stage of the Bill. I propose to do so also, because I think that it will save time. I have had a letter from the licensing justices for the petty sessional division of Kensington, which comprises the metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington and is, therefore, a fairly wide area, with a population of well over 600,000 in normal times. I feel it my duty, considering the size of the area and the number of people involved, to give the views of the licensing justices for this division to my hon. and learned Friend without elaborating them, so that, if there is anything in any of them, my hon. and learned Friend can perhaps correct them in Amendments in Committee stage later on.
The first point is in Clause 5 (1) and Clause 8 (1) of the Bill. There appears to be no provision for compensation in respect of the surrender of licences otherwise than by agreement, and provision should be made accordingly. By Clause 5 (3) it is considered that there should be a right of appeal to a judicial authority from the decision of the local inquiry rather than that the power of confirmation of the proposal, either with or without modification, should be vested finally in the Minister of Town and Country Planning. With respect to Clause 10 (2, a, ii) of the Bill, this deals with London, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already said, there are 16 petty sessional divisions within the Administrative County of London but the Bill proposes to include only 12 representatives of quarter sessions. If the proposal of the quarter sessions was that there should be one member from each petty sessional division, it would be impossible


to do so. Therefore, the Kensington Licensing Justices suggest that the number should be increased from 12 to 16 in London. No doubt, in order to keep the balance, the local authority—the London County Council—would also have to increase their representatives from 12 to 16.
With regard to Clause 10 (3) of the Bill, it specifically provides that the Order to be made by the Secretary of State should make provision for the inclusion of sub-committees for justices when only a particular locality concerned was affected. I am not clear on my reading of the Bill and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend could answer, in winding up the Debate, whether the persons to be included in the sub-committees under 10 (3) are the same as are on the committee under Clause 10 (2) or whether the committee can go outside and co-opt members to sit on the sub-committee. It is not clear whether that is so or not. The hon. Member for Peckham mentioned the difficulties, with all the other burdens, of members of local authorities having more work than is necessary. It would only seem fair that when they are dealing with large areas and vast populations there should be some form of local knowledge and that there should be the power of co-option on to sub-committees, and that they should not necessarily be the same people who are sitting on the main committees.
So much for the details of the Bill. May I say one or two words on its main thesis? It is, admittedly, an experiment. Up to now we have had the licensing justices purely and simply responsible for the licensing of licensed houses in the country, and here, for the first time, we have local authorities brought in as representatives of the people. It is, admittedly, an experiment which we must watch with care to see that public pressure, through the public representatives, does not overweight the freedom of the licensing justices, who have, broadly speaking, earned the respect of the people of this country by the way in which they have administered the licensing laws. So I shall watch this experiment with some care to see how it works, and I am glad for that reason that the Bill is only temporary and is only to last for five years.
However, I think a great opportunity does lie in it in replanning our war-damaged areas, and here I wish the hon.

Gentleman the Member for Peckham had been in his place at the moment because I want to make an appeal to him. We know who are the licensing justices. They are honourable people who have done good work in this line, but it is only fair to say at the same time that they are not allowed to be representative of the brewing industry in any way. What kind of people will the local authorities put on those licensing planning committees in their turn? The success of the experiment depends on the type of person the local authorities put on the licensing planning committees. Now there is a tradition with the licensing justices that their main object for years past has been to deal with redundancy and improvement. Here, however, you need a much wider outlook in planning—in the case of London, the whole of the County of London, and possibly areas contiguous, or not contiguous thereto, if large bodies of people are transferred to housing estates outside—and you have to have a very much wider outlook on this than merely the improvement and extinguishing of licences. A very great opportunity is given to the members of the local authority who are chosen for this particular job.
I would like to make this appeal to the hon. Member for Peckham, that in the case of London, the London County Council choose the best possible people, with the widest possible outlook on this, and, in choosing, do not overlook the claims of the Service men and the young people, because I believe that the Service men have something to give, some commonsense view, some wider experience they have gained in war, in seeing how other countries behave—Italy, France, Egypt, all those other countries which they have visited. I believe, if some young Service men could be put on, at any rate as one representative of the local authority, it would do a great deal to get a really well-planned scheme.
I think we have to look at the change of attitude towards this drink problem. Whether it is due to taxation or education, I think the general attitude of the public to drink now is quite different from what it was 25 or 30 years ago. I remember looking at photographs of schoolchildren in London in the 1900's. They do not represent anything like what the children are to-day. There is a complete change of attitude, and people can look


after their children to-day. The attitude towards the drunk man now is one of shame; in those days it was not looked on in that way at all, and that attitude is continually changing.
There is another feature in modern days which, whether we like it or not, I think we have to face, and that is that the women are drinking. Some people think they are drinking too much, particularly the young ones, but, none the less, they are drinking, and in this planning I would like to see proper provision made so that men and women could go into the public house and have a drink together without feeling that they are doing something wrong. We have to try and canalise this in the light of day, and not regard drink as a sin but face the fact that men have always drunk, that men and women are drinking to-day, and that it is much better that it should be done in the light of day than in some dark corner or leaning against a bar. I am old-fashioned enough, when I go into a public house in my constituency, to hate the sight of women leaning against the bar, and I would like to see proper provision and increased floor space, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already said, in these new public houses in war damaged areas where there can be proper, decent provision for looking after men and women in this way.
There is one other thing I think the public house should provide, and that is meals. Here again I come up against the question of floor space. In Kensington recently we ran a little exhibition. It did not amount to very much, it was not scientific, but it was designed to see how the people wanted Kensington planned. After they had seen it, they were asked to answer certain questions. I shall not go into the details, but one question was about community centres, and there was really no demand for them. Another one was about British restaurants and meals, and the answer was extremely interesting. There was really no demand for meals in residential areas, but there was such a demand in business areas. The result of this, I think, is that people near their homes like to feed at home on mother's own cooking, but the people in business communities, factories, offices and so on, do not like to take their food with them but would much rather have a cheap good meal at a place in the luncheon hour near them if they can get it. Up to now this

has been partly met by the British restaurants and partly by the pubs.
I believe there is a tremendous future for the provision by the public house of cheap, good, healthy meals, either sitting down, or a glass of beer and some cheese or something like that for the men. I hope that in the planning there will be room for that, because in the future of England, as in the past, the "pub" will be the working man's club, and it should be so in the light of day in a decent, happy, friendly atmosphere as it so often has been in the past in the country but not always in the town. I hope that in this great opportunity provided by the replanning of our public houses, we will use a broad, commonsense attitude, and a modern attitude, to life, and that these representaives of the local authorities, who have this great opportunity, will seize it.

4.49 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I would like to support the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan), that the opportunity be taken now, under this Bill, to give further facilities for obtaining meals and refreshments in licensed houses in this country. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to Kensington and the London area. I would like to refer to our country districts. Members of the Forces stationed in districts near our small county towns find nothing to do when they visit those towns—no cinemas, no refreshment places. There is nothing for them but to go into a public house and consume drink. I want opportunity for them to obtain in these public houses meals, tea, and coffee as well as alcoholic drinks. I am given to understand that by the terms of its licence an inn must be kept open at all hours of the day for the provision of refreshments, whereas an ordinary licensed house may close at 2 p.m. and not open again until 6 p.m. Therefore there is no opportunity for people to get tea or coffee in the afternoons from these places. Opportunity ought to be taken now to compel these houses to provide these commodities which are essential for the people, and which would lessen the consumption of alcoholic liquor.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on these Benches I want to say


that we recognise fully the necessity for a Bill of this kind and also that there should be close co-operation in the matters which will come, under the terms of the Bill, before the licensing justices and the planning authorities. The machinery of the Bill seems to provide very adequately for that co-operation. I would like to associate myself with the plea which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan), that the greatest care should be taken as regards the quality and qualification of the people who are put in the joint licensing committees on behalf of the local authorities. That is a matter of great consequence. I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member was suggesting some modification in the arrangement which has hitherto wisely prevailed, that in the selection of magistrates for licensing benches they should not have any particular interest in the brewing industry. I was not quite sure whether he was suggesting some modification—

Captain Duncan: No, I said we knew that licensing justices could not have any interests in brewing, and I wanted broadminded people with all kinds of experience to go on to the planning authorities.

Mr. White: I am with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the desirability of having broad-minded people with experience, but I join issue with him if he suggests that those going on to the planning authorities should have an interest in the business which is to be done. Clause 2 (3) provides that appointments will be made under such conditions as the Home Secretary will lay down, and I should imagine that that would be one of the conditions which he would prescribe. However, I should be glad if the Minister would make that clear. I would also like to associate myself with the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who dealt with what seemed to be an obscurity in the Bill in dealing with compensation. Under Clause 5, one or more licences may be transferred under a planning removal, and if public objection is taken a public inquiry may be ordered. If such an inquiry is held, and it raises matters of substance which call for the serious attention of my right hon. Friend, he might decide that he would have to veto the whole proposal. If that takes

place, I do not understand what is the position of the licence which it is proposed to transfer. Presumably, if it was proposed to transfer it from an area which had been blitzed there would be no use for a licence at all.
I think this is an opportunity to put our arrangements on a better footing. Nothing is more deplorable than the sordid conditions under which people drink. There are places where there is no room to do anything else but drink, and these are the most frequent and constant cause of excessive drinking. I regret a little that nothing has been done in this Bill to deal with the question of excise licences. So far as I can see, people can come along and, on payment of a small fee, open what is known as a "bottle shop." It is a serious matter, at any rate one calling for considerable attention, that, when a transfer is made, it should be open to anybody to come along and open such a shop, especially when other facilities of a similar kind are near by. It may be that this matter does not arise because it is controlled by the Location of Businesses Order, but I would like to be assured that some consideration has been given to it. As I have said, we recognise the necessity for a Bill of this kind and that there are matters of detail which we may wish to consider during the Committee stage.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: It is perhaps unfortunate that we are so pressed for time in connection with this Bill, because it is evident, from the last three speeches, that on the various social aspects associated with licensed houses, and what happens in them, hon Members would like to air many views. I suppose some would like to have a "show-down" on what has been happening in recent years. I welcome what has been said concerning licensed premises and what they ought to sell, in addition to what they seem to think they ought to sell. In many parts of the country if licensed houses have no beer they close. In some cases they close for three days a week. This is one of the many problems that ought to be faced.
The plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) was a genuine one. I believe that the whole tone of our public houses must be raised. There must be a social change whereby a man


can take his wife and family into a public house with dignity and feel at home and as comfortable as a member of Parliament might feel in his own club. I see no reason why in any public house in any part of the country a man should not feel at home and be able to take his family into it and obtain refreshments. But there is a snag of which the Minister ought to be aware. Many licensees favour the arguments which have been used here to-day, and have done so for a long time, but the brewers do not. Furthermore, in war-time the local food executive committees, when applications have been made for licences to sell food, have frowned on the idea and turned it down. We ought to bring about a change of that kind immediately. To sell a cup of tea or a sandwich you have to have a licence from the local food executive committee.
I want to reinforce the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on Clause 9 with regard to temporary licensing for temporary premises. Who authorises these ugly contraptions, which take the place of licensed houses that have been destroyed by bombs? I have been in some of these sheds or shacks which have been substituted for what were formerly well-built public houses. I know two in the London area which are only second to stables. They are unhygienic and insanitary and they are truly described by some people in the areas as "spit and sawdust" places. "The Cricketers" at Mitcham was demolished by a bomb some few years ago. There is an old stable there. The licensee does his best and has certainly endeavoured to make it look respectable. The building is likely to remain there for many years. We shall be building houses for the next four or five years and a hullaballoo would be kicked up if we started building public houses. Consequently, these temporary buildings will be there for a long period. It is unfair to the licensing authority and to the citizens that this kind of building should take the place of a well-arranged public house. The licensee remains there because the brewers have determined to continue the licence.
I do not wish to obstruct meeting the needs of the people in these areas but I would invite hon. Members to travel to London and take note of some of these shacks. Let them have a look inside, even if they are teetotallers. They are indeed a blot on the landscape. I am

rather fearful, as a local government representative, that we have here evidence of something which it is going to be very difficult to get rid of. I wonder whether the Minister should not exercise a little more caution. Clause 9 suggests that we are doing something which has not been permitted before. There is no planning concerning these temporary buildings. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter very seriously and help the local authorities to prevent these abortions appearing as substitutes for good public houses.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In spite of what has been said, this is rather an important Measure in many respects. I am not very much moved, for instance, by promises of its duration for only five years; I have been here too long to be deceived by prophecies that any legislation will come to an end at any given time. Consequently, it may be that this Bill will remain on the Statute Book for many more years than five. I have often wondered how it comes about that, when we come to the drink traffic, there is always an arrangement made so that the trade shall not suffer in any way from damage by enemy action. Public houses bombed to the ground must be the subject of legislation. What about chemists, tobacconists, grocers and provision dealers and other businesses in these same areas? There is no such consideration for them by Parliament as is apparently meted out to those who own licences to sell liquor.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) wanted in his speech to make public houses more respectable. I have never been able to understand why these places of refreshment should not sell food as well as drink. I have not yet come across a place in the United States of America where they only sell drink. We are very nearly unique in possessing places by the thousand which simply sell drink. Some of my hon. Friends feel that this Bill, although it may be of short duration, takes away the right of the public to object to arrangements of this kind. I understand that it does not provide the same right to individuals living in the locality to object to a licensed house being established there. I speak with a little knowledge of this problem. I live in a city which has been pretty badly


bombed. Someone said in this Debate that the people affected will be represented through the authorities on the new joint planning committees. I sat on a local authority for 10 years but I never lived in the ward that I represented.
Consequently, it is quite possible that all those who represent the local authorities on this new joint authority will not be resident at all in the district which will be affected. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has considered what would happen in these districts with regard to drinking clubs. Is there any planning for them? It is quite possible to find a large area without a public house being well supplied with drinking clubs.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the hon. Member mean an intelligent area?

Mr. Davies: I do not know whether it is more intelligent to drink in a public house than in a club. I want the right hon. Gentleman to say therefore whether there is anything in this Bill to plan clubs which will sell drink much on the same basis as it is sold in public houses. I should have thought that this was a splendid opportunity to extend the Carlisle system of governing the drink trade. An hon. Gentleman opposite laughs. Does he laugh at the Carlisle experiment?

Mr. Kirkwood: A fool always laughs at his own folly.

Mr. Davies: It was during the last war that we commenced the Carlisle experiment. I went to see it for myself, and nearly everything for which the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) has been pleading to-day is done at Carlisle. I should have thought that with the re-orientation of our social life, with patches of towns destroyed by bombing and new areas coming into existence, the Government would have considered extending the Carlisle experiment. I come back to my original point, that this Bill reduces the right of the individual to make an objection to the introduction of a licence in his area.
At present the public, either as individuals or through representatives, can protest to the licensing justices before any decision is reached. Under this Bill the decision is reached and the whole thing is cut and dried before the public is told. It is only when the thing has,

in classic language, become a fait accompli that the public have a right to object. It may then be too late. I do not know much about compensation and the levy. I live in a city which has been badly bombed; many public houses have been destroyed and thousands of houses have been demolished and damaged. New areas will, naturally, grow all round the city, and I am very much concerned about the position. I think I can speak for the people who have been taken out of slumdom and the poverty of big cities and removed to decent surroundings, when I say that, in spite of the fact that they like a glass of beer, they do not want too many "pubs" in their new surroundings. I am sure I am right in saying that. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary and the Minister will be very careful on this score.
My last word is to the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington. I hope he thinks occasionally of the race to which we belong. I am apprehensive sometimes when I read the vital statistics. I do not like the trend of events in our population. I do not like the thieving that is rampant. I do not like to see the people in this country becoming degraded. I have satisfied myself, without being too harsh, that drink is one of the greatest contributories to any deterioration that happens to the citizens of any country. I trust that the Government, which has the welfare of the nation at heart and which knows its requirements, will not be too ready to grant anything to the drink traffic which it does not deserve in justice to the rest of the community. We are dealing with a very important problem in this Bill. The drink traffic has multiplied its profits twice in ten years. I trust, therefore, that Members of all parties will not consider merely what is covered by this Bill, but will remember that the nation to which we belong, especially the younger generation, is the concern of us all.

5.15 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I think the House will agree with me that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General exposed this Bill so that very little remains to be said by way of sheer exposition. The Bill has been very well received by the House, and I am grateful for the constructive suggestions that have been made. All of them will be looked into between now and the later stages of


the Bill. I should like to say, in case any hon. Member thinks I am discourteous in not referring to some suggestions that he has made, that the Bill itself is not concerned primarily with some of those interesting and important topics that were raised as to the conduct of public houses, whether there should be meals supplied, and the provision of amenities within the houses themselves. These are larger questions, and the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) about the drink traffic in general are outside the immediate purposes with which I have to deal in reply to the Debate. If I do not trench on these wider topics, I hope I shall not be accused of discourtesy.
I think the House will be interested if I were to deal with the administrative problems of a planning character to which this Bill is directed. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) put some pertinent points as to the way in which the proposals in this Bill will work out in practice. I would say, as a general observation, that we must wait and see to find the answers to some of these difficult problems, but I will attempt to give my views on the questions he put. He first put the point about its being desirable in some projects of resettlement of population to move one licence to another area. He mentioned Chingford as an example of a licensing district which it would not be desirable on any other grounds to merge with the area from which the people were coming. I do not for the moment see the answer to that, except that it must lie along these lines. If it is necessary to remove sufficient licences to an area so as to make the distribution of licences within that area a planning problem, the area should be joined up. If, on the other hand, the area has no concern of a planning character with a movement out of a devastated area, it should be left alone. In between there must come a number of border-line cases. In the case of one licence being required in a new area, that would be de minimis; you would not want to merge it for that purpose. The way in which a problem of that sort would be met is by consultation between the areas concerned, and it might be possible in some cases for an amicable understanding to be arrived at to meet the difficulty. What the Bill provides, to an extent which has never been pro-

vided before, is the possibility, over the licensing districts concerned, of such redistribution of licences as will serve the public need and the public good.
I said that this Bill is not concerned with the amenities within public houses, but it has this indirect connection with them. It enables a great step forward to be made in an area with the proper siting of a public house. That is to say, in areas at present congested with public houses in too close proximity to each other, it will enable the congestion to be lowered and enable other areas which have not reasonable facilities for refreshment to be provided with them. I feel that an improvement in the surroundings and siting of these houses throughout our urban areas will, indirectly, powerfully contribute to the increase of amenities and of decency inside.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Does the Bill take power to interfere with existing agreements, in cases, for example, where houses have been built under an agreement that no public house should be built in the same area?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is nothing in the Bill which overrides an agreement of that sort, so far as I am aware. The second point raised by my hon. Friend was a rather verbal one about the definition of "an area of extensive war damage," which expression is used in this Bill as in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. The answer, shortly, is that neither in the Bill nor in the Act are these words defined. They are left undefined for a very good reason, namely, that it should be the administrative task of the Minister concerned—myself under the Act and the Home Secretary under the Bill—to say what is an area of extensive war damage. I pointed out in the discussions on the Act of 1944 that it would be unwise to enable an administrative discretion of that character to be challenged in the courts by attempting to define it.
On the question of compensation, I have no doubt we shall hear more as the Bill proceeds. The view taken by the Committee and enshrined in the Bill is that the need for compensation will not arise from the functions that we are now conferring upon these new bodies. The idea is that the licensing planning authority can, by negotiation with the persons interested, achieve the required redistribution of licences without compen-


sation. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham is naturally very vigilant to see that local authorities shall not be saddled with additional expense, but I would point out to him that local authorities in these negotiations will not enter the fray, or the bargain, or the market, or whatever it is, unarmed. They will have very powerful inducements to offer to those with whom they are bargaining. In many cases in these redevelopment and reconstruction areas where the Bill will be operative, and in their associated overspill areas, the local authority will, under the Town and Country Planning Act, be the owners of the soil and of the sites and buildings upon it, and it will have a power of disposition, subject to good management, which will put them in a good bargaining position.
When we look at the other side of the picture, at the trades interested and the owners of public houses in these particular areas of extensive war damage, they are not in too strong a position. In many cases they will not be able to resume occupation of their old sites. There is one quite important public-house site in this city which is now occupied by a static water tank—which seems a somewhat surprising metamorphosis from the original purpose to which the land was put. In other cases, where people are being moved, under a decongestion plan, it will be of interest to the trade to follow their customers. If these two matters are borne in mind I think it will be found possible to arrive at amicable arrangements so as to deal with this matter by negotiation.
My hon. Friend returned to the attack on the question of public local inquiries. He contrasted the modifications of procedure which were agreed to in the Town and Country Planning Act with the requirement of the Bill that, in the case of objections not withdrawn, public local inquiries should be held. He seemed to be somewhat at variance with the hon. Member who sits beside him. The hon. Member for Westhoughton was concerned at the lack of opportunity for public protest in these arrangements. I will leave the two hon. Members to settle that matter between them. I would point out that there is a slight difference between the purpose of the Bill and the purpose of the Act. There, we were dealing with Orders for the acquisition

of land and schemes and proposals of a planning character generally. We came to arrangements to which the House consented. Here we have a different history.
I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Westhoughton because he reminded us of the tone and temper which used to characterise this controversy in days which I think are going by; that is to say, he laid great stress upon the right of objection and of appeal in every case. I am not criticising him for holding the views that he so honourably does. It is because the history of this affair is what it is and because certain sections of the public attach so much importance to the power to object to new licences or the siting of a licence in another place, that the matter stands as it is in the Bill. I agreed in the Town and Country Planning Act—and the House welcomed the proposal—that mere frivolous objections should be excluded. I have no doubt that we shall discuss the matter further in Committee, but I can tell my hon. Friend now that the purpose of the two inquiries is different, that their emotional history is a little different, and that if he accepts that as the reason for the draft, perhaps he will let it go at that stage.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) made observations which were very welcome to me about the necessity for the representatives of the planning authority on the licensing planning committee to be of high quality and broadmindedness. I welcome those observations, and I hope they will be taken note of by the authorities concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned a number of points which he said were in the minds of the licensing justices in his own area. The same licensing justices were courteous enough to send me a copy of their resolutions, and it reached me yesterday. The resolutions will, of course, receive the careful consideration which they merit, but I am bound to say that I do not feel at the moment that some of the objections to which they drew attention are valid, upon further examination.
I have already dealt with the matter of compensation. Their second point was that the right of appeal should be to a judicial authority from the decision of the public local authority, and not to the


Minister of Town and Country Planning. That suggestion raises the whole difficulty which the Bill is designed to meet. Assume that one agreed with the licensing justices and said that appeal from the local inquiry should be to a judicial authority; what is the point of law upon which a judicial authority could possibly give a decision? In other words, the whole difficulty with which we are dealing here is the need to transfer what has hitherto been a judicial matter to an administrative body that can negotiate and can deal with a matter administratively, and not, like the justices, be forced by their own procedure to hear individual applications and have no power to range outside and take in wider considerations of a planning character.
The third resolution is about the composition of the London joint planning body. All I say about that at the moment is that we have followed in the Bill the recommendation of the Committee. If my hon. Friend cares to raise a point on the matter later no doubt we could go into it. I think the fourth and last point he made was to stress how desirable it is that local opinion in the districts within the petty sessional division should be ascertained on all questions. On examination my hon. and gallant Friend will, I think, see that that point is covered by Clause 10, Sub-section 3 (c), because it is expressly provided there that the Secretary of State may by order provide for the appointment of sub-committees of the licensing planning committee
for the purpose of considering and reporting on such matters as may be specified in the order, of persons nominated by such authorities or bodies concerned with the area or any part thereof as may be so specified.
So I think that that point is covered. The other point my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead made about the excise licence is one I must look into. I do not know about it.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) raised some points about what he considered to be the undesirable ramshackle condition of certain places where drink is now being sold in London. He asked me how these are licensed. They are licensed under the existing law as it stands. Of course, London is working under very difficult conditions, and I can well understand it if people have not been able to do as well as they would have liked to, either in the construction of tem-

porary premises or in the supervision of them, at a time like this. But the answer to him is that the licensing is done under the existing law. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton asked about clubs. They are not affected by this Bill at all, except indirectly to this extent: I know that in this controversy in the past there has been some criticism levelled against clubs which sell drink in an unsupervised way. In so far as an evil of that sort exists, in my opinion it exists very often because of an unreasonable scarcity of properly-conducted licensed premises in the area. This Bill, by providing for a better distribution of good and well-sited licensed houses, does impinge on that problem, on which there has been some difficulty in the past.

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say a word about Clause 13, which seems to be rather obscure.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I remember the point he made on Clause 13 (3). It was, I think, to the effect that the powers of local planning authorities might be invaded by this Bill in certain directions by the new authorities to be created.

Mr. Silkin: The point was that this Sub-section is not at all clear. I hoped that the intention was that these powers were not to be injured. I would like to be quite sure.

Mr. Morrison: I can tell the hon. Member straight out that the intention is to leave the powers of the local planning authorities quite unimpaired. If there are points of obscurity in the wording perhaps we can deal with them in Committee, but that is the intention. It must be remembered that on these new administrative bodies, the licensing planning authorities, are to have equal numbers of representatives of the licensing justices and of the planning authority itself. The whole purpose of the Bill is to resolve, if we can, a diarchy in administration between the licensing system and the planning system, to resolve it at the very root, so that the two authorities do not go on pursuing contrary policies, which then have, with great difficulty, to be reconciled. We believe that these new bodies will be suitable for their task.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word of sincere thanks which I am sure the House would endorse, seeing that it


has received this Bill in the way it has, to the Morris Committee and its distinguished chairman, for the care and diligence and ingenuity it brought to the task of framing their Report, which has been so largely incorporated in this Bill. It is a sign, I think, that a controversy which has been charged with a great deal of heat in the past, is now being approached in a more reasonable spirit. I should like to express my thanks to Mr. Morris and his colleagues for their labours in producing their Report.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Major A. S. L. Young.]

Committee To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major A. S. L. Young.]

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Turton: On 17th November I raised on the Adjournment the question of the continued outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country and referred to the Argentine meat that was imported. I pointed out then that certain steps ought to be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture to prevent foot-and-mouth disease getting a stranglehold on the livestock industry. The three points I made then were: First, that vehicles carrying foreign meat should be disinfected before they were used to carry livestock or materials, such as feeding-stuffs, for the farms. The second was that butchers handling imported meat should be prohibited from keeping pigs, or alternatively they should be prohibited from keeping pigs on their own premises. Thirdly, I said that in my view it was very important that every publicity should be given to the peril and dangers of this disease and its causes, on the B.B.C. and in the Press, and everywhere where the Ministry could do so.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied to me on that date. On the transport question he made a statement that all vehicles carrying swill must be disinfected before carrying other feeding-stuffs, and he said there was only one occasion known when a vehicle had carried live-

stock and imported meat. He finished by saying that it was the duty of the individual in these cases to see that the vehicle was sterilised before its use for the second purpose. That surprised me very much, because it meant I had misled the House, quite inadvertently, when I made this fuss about carrying imported meat in vehicles which would have to be used for the carriage of feeding-stuffs and of livestock. It meant also that the veterinary profession who had informed me of the danger of this bad misinformed me. So I put down a Question to the Minister of Agriculture on 7th December dealing with this point to see whether, in fact, I had been incorrect. The Minister of Agriculture on 7th December said that it was not obligatory to disinfect a vehicle after it had carried imported meat prior to its carrying livestock or feeding-stuffs. He went on to say:
I am sorry if any statement made during the Debate on the Adjournment on 17th November gave a misleading impression."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 726.]
Unfortunately, these mistakes do a great deal of damage, and a correction does not get the notoriety which is received by a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in a Debate in this House, which is reported in all the agricultural papers and given full notoriety among the agricultural profession. It is, in my view, extremely unfortunate that this misleading impression should have been given to the House. Now that it has been given, what is to be done? It is, I think, beyond argument that all up and down the country imported meat is being taken from the collecting centres in vehicles that are used at other times to carry feeding-stuffs and livestock off the farms, and this is a very grave danger. If the Order is not in existence, as the Minister has now told us, it should be in existence, and, whatever the difficulties, it is for the Minister of Agriculture to devise a method of disinfecting the vehicles after they have been used for the carriage of Argentine meat; or if such methods are not devised, there must be a prohibition against using the same vehicle for carrying Argentine meat and later carrying materials for use on the farms.
The Parliamentary Secretary agreed with me that everything should be done, by leaflets and through the B.B.C., to educate farmers and everyone concerned.


He agreed with me on 17th November. Three days later, in Yorkshire, at Scalby, near Scarborough, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred. Let me tell the House how it was announced in the Press and on the B.B.C. On the morning of 20th November the markets were closed. Some farmers heard that a case was suspected. It was announced in the evening papers at half-past five that a case had been suspected. In the broadcast news at 6 o'clock there was no news at all of this outbreak. The farmers who listened in had no help. Only those farmers who bought an evening paper, or who met officials or the police, knew that foot-and-mouth disease had been suspected. At half-past six officials were telling farmers not only that a case was suspected, but that it had been confirmed. Yet the broadcast news gave no news of any case being suspected or confirmed. Next morning the daily Press in Yorkshire merely said that a case had been suspected, not that it had been confirmed, although 12 hours before officials were telling farmers that a case had been confirmed. I do not lay any charge against the Minister of Agriculture on that score, but it shows how much more education he must give to the B.B.C. and to the Press on the necessity for getting news of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease out at once.
My third point, on the necessity for butchers not to keep pigs, has, I think, been confirmed by subsequent events. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in his view it would be impracticable to prevent butchers keeping pigs. Since then there have been outbreaks all over the country, and in a vast number of cases these can be traced to butchers. This very week-end, when I got home on Friday night, I found that two miles away from my farm a butcher keeping pigs had brought foot-and-mouth disease to my constituency. It may interest the House to know the result of the inquiries I made during the week-end on that case. They may illustrate how important it is that butchers should not keep pigs. This butcher, Mr. Pattison, was a most careful man, keeping pedigree pigs. He had his pigs well away from his butcher's premises. He boiled all his swill, he had a foot-bath installed for disinfection, so that people would not bring infection when coming to the styes. Yet his pigs caught this outbreak. He got all his swill

from a prisoner-of-war camp, run by the War Office. It was brought, processed, to his farm, and there boiled. In his view—and I think it is the view of the Minister—the infection comes merely from the handling of the imported meat. The marrow gets on to his clothes, and when he deals with his pigs it is carried to them. There you have a careful butcher, who has not only lost his own pedigree herd but has brought the danger to the whole agricultural area of Yorkshire, although he took every possible precaution.
I submit that to-day the menace is so great that butchers should not be allowed to keep pigs. It is a very great menace to the future of our livestock industry. Our livestock industry is one of the most important parts of our new agricultural policy. If we are going to destroy the good name for health of the British livestock industry, it will be very hard to rebuild our agriculture, as we desire, at the end of the war. I believe that every farmer, every butcher, every official, has a duty to take great care over this foot-and-mouth disease menace—not only to take great care, but to make sacrifices. It is not good enough to say, "We have so many restrictions and regulations to-day, we must not add to them." This is a matter where agriculture will brook more restrictions and regulations, if it means stamping out foot-and-mouth disease.
There was one part of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech on 17th November that I thought was very unfortunate. It mystified us a great deal. Having dealt with my suggestion regarding stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, he went on to say that there had been discovered in this country a vaccine which, when used in the Argentine, produced a certain amount of immunity. I do not want to make out that he claimed more than he actually did, but that created an unfortunate impression, because it makes people think, "This disease cannot be so bad; it is only a temporary phase; here is the Parliamentary Secretary talking about some cure for this disease in the Argentine." He gave no details of it. I questioned the Ministry later to find out what was this vaccine. I was told that it is a crystal violet vaccine, which is produced at Pirbright. We must be told what is the principle of this vaccine. I know people who have claimed to have discovered


immunity. I asked him on the same day about a Dr. Crofton, who claimed that, in Brazil and the Argentine, he had created immunity in animals. If that is a fact, we ought to be told. If this Pirbright crystal violet vaccine gives immunity, we should tell the Argentine Government that, until and unless it is using these two vaccines we will not have any more Argentine meat in this country, and that, if there is a process giving immunity, it should be used forthwith. I think it is a great pity that this issue was introduced at the present time. Our job is to see that this dangerous substance, Argentine meat, is not allowed to infect our livestock. Because of the serious position of meat supplies in war we must have Argentine meat, but we should see to it that, when it is brought here, it does not wreck the future of the British livestock industry. I am sorry to have troubled the House a second time on foot-and-mouth disease, but I think it of vital importance at the present time. I also think it is unfortunate that, quite inadvertently, my right hon. Friend had misled the House on this subject, and it is on that account that I have brought it up again. I hope he will be able to give us a fuller reply than he did on the last occasion.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on this very important question, and I would like to support him, as I did last time, as strongly as I can, in his plea for a tightening up of the existing regulations to secure the most effective control possible of this dangerous disease. I think the fact we have to face is that despite all the regulations we have to-day this deadly menace to our livestock industry, and, particularly, to our dairy industry, our No. 1 priority, is spreading. The disease not only persists, but is spreading, and, to me, the most alarming feature of the present outbreak is that it is spreading, not by contact, but through initial outbreaks, and there is a very great difference between the two. There is very great concern in my country, as well as South of the Border, because no action has been taken since the Debate on 17th November to tighten up the present regulations. I do not know what the present figure of the number of outbreaks is, as

I have been unable to keep up with them, but, surely, the very fact that we have had over 100 outbreaks during the past 12 months is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the present regulations are completely ineffective.
What are the Government going to do about it? They cannot go on as they are doing now. It is not fair to our attested herds, or to our tuberculin-tested herds throughout the country. It is not fair to the whole livestock industry. I was present when the Minister replied last time, and, though I do not want to take up the points already made so effectively by my hon. Friend, in reading through the Minister's speech, it seemed to me that the Government's objection to any further restrictions in regard to our present regulations was based upon the fact that some outbreaks have occurred through household scraps becoming contaminated by frozen meat, and, unless these people were going to be controlled, nothing else could be done in the whole field of foot-and-mouth control. But the fact remains, according to my information from Scotland, at any rate—it may be slightly different South of the Border—that the great majority of initial outbreaks do occur in pigs fed on swill procured from camps or large institutions and from butchers' premises, where uncooked meat-stuffs find their way into the mixture. The butcher, as a pig feeder, is a very serious offender, and I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about butchers. If the danger from the camp, institution or butcher's premises could be eliminated, I submit that the risk to the farmer would be really negligible. The only real solution, as I pointed out last time, is compulsory centralised processing of all swill, but I recognise, as one must, in face of the arguments put up, that here we are up against very serious difficulties; and, alternatively, to bring in an Order imposing compulsory sterilisation of swill in Service establishments and institutions of that kind would, I think, lead to the destruction of very valuable foodstuffs and cause great hardship to people who are already suffering under very great restriction of feeding stuffs, so I am not going to press that point.
What, then, can be done? The National Farmers' Union of Scotland and Chamber of Agriculture have been intensely interested in this matter, and they have put to me a suggestion which I think is,


at any rate, a step in the right direction. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell us that, because of all the difficulties in bringing in new restrictions, the proposals we make will do a great deal of harm in another way, we shall not make any progress, but this suggestion is very simple, and I do not think it will impose any hardship anywhere. I admit that it is not a 100 per cent. remedy. It is that all users of purchased swill should be required to register. Registration would mean that the police would immediately become aware of the fact that people in the village or town were using this form of swill, and we know, in this war, that, unconsciously, when one becomes registered for any particular purpose, one becomes more efficient and careful. The police could descend on these people—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): Did my hon. Friend say that all users of purchased swill must be registered?

Mr. Snadden: Yes, purchasers of raw swill which has not gone through a centralised plant. In regard to the butcher, I do not think it would be reasonable to prohibit butchers keeping pigs. I know many who are doing the job very thoroughly, but I would include them in my registration scheme. Obviously quite a large number of consumers are left outside the net, but I think everyone realises that we cannot possibly control the farmer who collects scraps from his own household. Against that, we have to remember that only in a very small number of cases is raw imported meat found in household swill.
One hon. Member has told the House about the danger of animals gaining access to swill which has been dumped on the farm and is awaiting treatment. I suggest that this danger could be eliminated if it became an offence to transport raw swill unless in watertight containers. I was in the streets of Edinburgh about a month ago and saw raw swill being transported in a lorry, from which it was seeping into the streets. That, in itself, is a very serious thing, and I suggest that this proposal for watertight containers should be taken into consideration and there would not be the same danger of animals getting at the mixture.
From the information I have been able to gather, there is substantial evidence that swill is our main source of infection, and I hope the Minister, in his reply, will consider the suggestions put forward. I hope that nothing will be left undone to ensure that the treatment of this potential source of infection is made as effective as is humanly possible. We are not satisfied at the present time that everything that can be done has been done, and I hope that to-day the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Minister is prepared to take some further steps along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend and myself.

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

6.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): The whole question of foot-and-mouth disease is of very great importance not only to the agricultural industry, but also to the nation. I welcome any opportunity to gain further publicity for the dangers and ways of meeting them. They give rise to a very wide range of problems and if we could concern ourselves with disease alone, obviously, the straightforward method would be to prohibit the import of meat from those countries where the disease is endemic or outbreaks are known to be occurring. But my hon. Friend knows full well that that is almost out of the question. The Minister of Food stated recently that if he were to adopt the policy suggested by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) it would reduce our meat ration from what it is down to somewhere about 9d. per person per week.

Mr. Turton: I have never made that suggestion.

Mr. Williams: I understood my hon. Friend to make the suggestion to-day that the only means of solving the problem was by prohibiting imports of South American meat. We cannot do that, because we cannot concern ourselves with disease alone, and in the same way, when considering smaller measures, obviously the House has to consider the cost in time, labour and inconvenience of any further step we might be disposed to


take. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has corrected the error I fell into on 17th November, but he still persists that something might be done with regard to the conveyance of imported meat. It is a case that must be looked at very carefully. To provide the safeguard that he suggests, we should require an order which would provide for two things, namely, that vehicles used in the distribution of meat should not at the same time be used for carrying livestock or certain farm requisites, and that such vehicles should not subsequently be used for carrying other goods until they had been properly cleansed and disinfected. I have spoken of meat rather than imported meat, because it is hardly practicable to think in terms of imported meat only. In almost every case the vehicles used for carrying imported meat are also used for carrying home-killed meat. Although a good deal has been done to arrange for distribution in such a way as to help over the foot-and-mouth disease problem, it is still possible that nearly all meat dealers have some imported meat at some odd time. I am sure that the House will not agree to apply such an Order as has been suggested to retail distribution.
I make that bold statement for the following reasons. I ask hon. Members to look for a moment at what the retail distribution of imported or home-killed meat really involves. Wherever possible, consumers are expected to carry home their own joints. There are thousands of farmers who carry home their own joints in their own vehicles, and perhaps the joint of a friend and neighbour or even of one of their employees, together with certain other requirements for the farm and, occasionally, a calf or a pig. The House will agree that it would not be possible or practicable to prohibit that, and certainly it would not be practicable to require that a farmer, who in his own vehicle conveys his own joint to his own home, shall not be able to carry any other farm requisite in that same vehicle, but must make two journeys and disinfect his vehicle in between them. Again, some meat, as hon. Members will know, is taken from house to house by what is called a pooled delivery service or by common carriers, and in each case the order of prohibition to which I have referred is almost entirely out of the question. In short, retail distribution cannot

be dealt with by order, and I think even my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton would agree with that proposition. The problem of retail distribution can only be dealt with by enjoining upon everyone to prevent meat, imported meat in particular, coming in contact with other goods.
Possibly, something more might be done about wholesale distribution, but here again one must weigh in the balance the advantages, or possible advantages, with the disadvantages of any order. In any case, I must say that in wholesale distribution it would, of course, be utterly impossible completely to close the door, for some exemptions would have to be provided in any such order to meet cases where it was quite impossible to avoid carrying meat and other goods at the same time. For instance, there are certain isolated areas in Scotland that are completely outside the general transport scheme for meat, and that, of course, would form one exemption to any order. In these cases, small quantities of meat are taken by common carriers, but those common carriers may take other goods in the same vehicle, and may pick up any other goods on the return journey. I do not see how it is possible to avoid that. Nevertheless, it is still fair to examine whether an order covering the wholesale distribution of meat would be of some help. The practical question is whether the amount of help to be gained is enough to offset the additional work, the dislocation, and the various difficulties that would be involved.
The wholesale distribution, as most hon. Members will know, is undertaken by the Ministry of War Transport on behalf of the Ministry of Food. They operate approximately 1,500 vehicles direct and a much larger number, nearer 9,000, on a part-time basis on contract. These vehicles are also used for other purposes owing to the need for economy in fuel, tyres and labour. They often go out with meat and pick up some other load on the return journey and, of course, privately-owned vehicles are conveying goods of all sorts and kinds when they are not directly employed for the Ministry of War Transport. If an order were extant, which compelled a person, after having conveyed meat, thoroughly to cleanse and disinfect his conveyance before he could pick up any other load, certain difficulties would be encountered. I quite


admit that none of the difficulties are so serious as some of the difficulties that the farmer is faced with, but, nevertheless, there are practical difficulties. One can imagine a lorry driver at the end of his journey, having conveyed his load, finding no hot water to make his soda solution in order to disinfect his vehicle or means to dry it before any other goods can be picked up. The driver would have to return empty or break the law. Certainly, there would be a great deal of dislocation if such an order existed. This is the sort of practical problem that must be taken into account in dealing with this question.
On the other hand, the essential question is: If such an order were made, how much improvement could be expected? Last year, 1944, would have been a very great test of the risk involved in the transport of imported meat, for in that year there was a heavy wave of disease in South America, which if the transport risk had been great, ought, naturally, to have expressed itself in outbreaks where vehicles had conveyed meat and other goods to or from farms in their daily work. If even five out of the 180 outbreaks of 1944 could have been traced to vehicles used for wholesale meat distribution, then an order might very well have been justified. If even three cases, or two, or one, had been traced to such a vehicle then there would have been something to be said for an order. But not one outbreak in 1944 was traced to a vehicle conveying imported meat.

Earl Winterton: I may be stupid, but I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I always understood that in the majority of these cases the Ministry were quite unaware of the cause of the outbreak. What is the value of evidence that cannot be definitely traced to vehicles? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases in which the outbreak has been traced to a particular source?

Mr. Williams: I think it is simple to reply to the Noble Lord. In searching for the cause of an outbreak all relevant factors are examined by thorough-going experts in this problem. In no case has it been discovered that an original outbreak had been due to the presence of a vehicle which has conveyed the meat from one place to another The Noble Lord asked

me whether I could say how many outbreaks have been attributed to one or the other cause. I said on 17th November in this House that the vast number of outbreaks had been directly traced to swill containing imported meat. I ought to say that it is not only in 1944 that we have had under review this problem of meat from countries where the disease is endemic, or where they have constantly recurring outbreaks. We have had it under review for many years prior to 1944, and so far as the evidence goes to show, few or no cases have been traced directly to any particular vehicle.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether examination of all these relevant factors has exonerated vehicles where it was proved that the disease could not have originated from that source?

Mr. Williams: The only distance I am prepared to go is to say that no original outbreak has been traced to a vehicle. There are, every year, some cases where the source of origin may be doubtful. After carefully watching all these outbreaks on balance, it has not been felt worth while to make another order dealing exclusively with vehicles. I think the House will be with me when I say we ought not to delude ourselves, that by the mere passing of a spate of orders we could solve a great problem like foot-and-mouth disease. In 1924 there was for a short time a Labour Government, and the then Minister of Agriculture was confronted with a bill for £3,000,000 expenses incurred in paying for foot-and-mouth disease losses in 1923. The first fortnight of the Labour Government was devoted to showing reasons why they had not cured the disease, though they had only taken office the previous week. This has been a great problem for a very long time, and the mere passing of more and still more orders will not necessarily solve it, or remove the danger from the countryside.

Mr. Turton: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is saying to-night that most of the 180 outbreaks have meat been traced to imported Argentine meat in transport. On 17th November, in talking about imported meat, he said that these various dangers were greater than those arising from swill. I do not quite understand how he can make those two statements


agree. I quite understand that it is difficult for him to say that one particular outbreak came from a vehicle, and another from swill or foreign meat.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member had an unfortunate outbreak in Thirsk last week and he has informed the House how it occurred. He said it was the result of pigs belonging to a butcher having been infected. Those who are responsible for dealing with the problem in the Ministry have vast experience and, as soon as they can, they try to trace the origin of any outbreak. No one attempts to withhold information from the House as to the source of origin. With regard to vehicles, I need only say that, if we can reduce the risk in other ways, I think we ought to leave nothing undone that could be done to help, but we ought not to delude ourselves that the passing of an impracticable order is going to be the solution. I know we can count on the assistance of the Minister of Transport, in impressing on those who convey imported meat, the importance of properly cleansing and disinfecting vehicles before carrying livestock. Full publicity cannot fail to help the problem.
My hon. Friend referred again to butchers. In November he demanded that the Ministry should prohibit the keeping of pigs on butchers' premises. Now he has changed his mind, and he wants us completely to prohibit butchers from keeping pigs at all. I replied in November showing the practical difficulties of even preventing butchers from keeping pigs on their premises. The actual outbreak in the hon. Member's division is found to be a mile and a half away from the butcher's shop. That has proved my contention of 17th November and tended to destroy the contention of my hon. Friend.
Now he goes one step further and says we ought to prohibit every butcher from keeping pigs. Does he mean that we should prohibit only the butcher, or also the butcher's wife, the butcher's brother, the butcher's country cousin and anybody related to the butcher? If we are to have an effective order, it must be carried to that distance, and I am sure the Noble Lord will agree. In the mile-and-a-half between where the butcher's pigs were kept and the actual butcher's premises, there may be a dozen lots of other pigs

that are kept which are always in the same danger as the butcher's pigs. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that here is a proposition which is wholly impracticable and which Members of the House would not stand for for a moment. My hon. Friend knows that some butchers are also farmers. Would he prohibit a butcher-farmer from keeping pigs? If so, how would he interpret a farm? Should it be one acre, 50, 100 or 200 acres, or what should it be? It is easy to make a suggestion without having carefully considered what it really implies. I suggest that it is not so much the butcher as meat scraps that are the danger to our livestock. If the Orders already in existance were faithfully complied with, the danger would be reduced enormously.
I have only a few moments left in which to deal with the question of vaccine. My hon. Friend rather regretted that I mentioned it on 17th November, although he asked me for the information. He asked me to tell the House of any steps which the Department had taken to try to reduce this disease to a minimum. I informed him that a vaccine had been produced at Pirbright which, on results in tests in this country, proved capable of producing a degree of immunity which may last for a year. I also said that particulars of the vaccine and the method of preparation of it had been sent to Argentina. We must recognise that there is a wide gap between the experimental work so far done here and the large-scale use in conditions such as obtain in South America.
Reference has been made once again to Dr. Crofton. I can only say that Dr. Crofton's claim to have discovered a cure for foot-and-mouth disease forms part of much wider claims. His views are not accepted by the medical profession, and they are contrary to scientific opinion all over the world. However, a test was carried out at the Foot-and-mouth Disease Research Station at Pirbright on lines agreed upon by Dr. Crofton himself. The result disproved his theory, and it provided no evidence of any relationship between his cultured micro-organisms and foot-and-mouth disease. I understand there have also been some tests in France and also in South America, but under no official arrangements, and no details of these tests are known to us. Neither have there been any published results.
I am advised that the Pirbright test was scientifically conclusive, and no fresh


grounds have been provided to warrant re-opening the question. I am sorry to have gone on so long in replying to my two hon. Friends, but I want to say in conclusion that the Ministry have no intention of hushing up anything about imported meat. I have here a whole list of Press notices which have been sent out and a couple of sample leaflets which have been printed by the hundred thousand and sent out all over the country. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome whatever publicity we can get from this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) made a suggestion which does not seem very practicable. It was that all those who purchase swill ought to be registered. What is to happen to the person who is lucky enough to be able to beg swill? If such an Order were in existence it would affect scores of thousands of people, who would easily find ways and means out of it. The suggestion does not appeal to me at the moment as practicable.
If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton wishes to pursue this matter further with the veterinary officers of the Ministry, we shall be very glad to make an appointment at any time. I hope that the House generally will agree that all practical steps that can be taken have been taken, and I can assure them that such steps will be taken in the future, to help the farmers of this country.

6.26 p.m.

Earl Winterton: In the two or three minutes left to me I should like to make one observation with which I do not think the Minister will disagree. I have not the knowledge on this matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has, but I think that the whole community, and the agricultural community especially, and those who represent them in this House, are indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this question.
On these occasions one cannot refer to legislation and, therefore, my argument must be somewhat circumscribed; but, in my opinion, this Adjournment Debate, despite the small attendance of Members, has been of immense importance. It is now, as I see it, indelibly impressed on the minds of everyone that the main cause of foot-and-mouth disease, by the

admission of the Minister himself, is imported diseased meat. It is a monstrous thing that the people of this country should be asked to eat it. In the present state of medical knowledge there may well be—and no one can say "Yea" or "Nay" in the matter—a connection between that fact and cancer of the stomach. It is a monstrous thing that we should take out of the pockets of the taxpayer £300,000,000 a year, or £30,000,000 a year—whatever the sum may be does not matter much, because it is, at any rate, a large sum of money—in order to compensate farmers for losing their stock, and that the hearts of many good pedigree breeders should be broken because of the fact—let the House take note of it—that the foul foot-and-mouth disease is due to diseased meat being brought to this country.
It would be out of Order for me to say on this occasion what the remedy is, but I hope that the fact will be impressed on the minds of the agricultural community, and that they will continue to press it upon this House all the time now that we have had an admission from the Minister himself on the matter. In the old days we used to be told: "We do not know. It may be brought here by birds." We have now been told that this filthy diseased meat which is brought here is responsible. What a reflection on the Governments of this country in the past, and upon the Ministry of Health, that this meat should come into this country. I hope that this House and the agricultural community will learn this lesson. The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night and we now know that, in the great majority of cases, the disease is due to diseased meat—let us not simply call it meat infected with foot-and-mouth disease—which is brought into this country for human food, and which is found in swill. I hope that on a future occasion when we can discuss this matter further, suggestions will be made for remedying the position. There is a very good remedy, although it affects questions of foreign and Imperial relations. In any case, it cannot be discussed now.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes after Six o'Clock.